> And so describes most users experience with open source software. The exposure of its inner workings is not a direct benefit to most users - it simply makes u

> And so describes most users experience with open source software. The exposure of its inner workings is not a direct benefit to most users - it simply makes undesired and unexpected behaviors detectable and unsustainable. This is not wholly unlike the common media consumer's desire to truncate what information they need to consume to reach conclusions. Arguing by analogy is dangerous, in this case because doing a code review of open source software is actually not like reading a news article, or being an informed citizen. The incentives are different in each case, so is the actual activity, so are the people involved, so is the level of expertise required, so is the social obligation. It's actually only really alike in a couple ways, the biggest one being: you're looking at something. Okay. > Strong, but basic critical thinking, not among all, but spread among enough, is sufficient to collectively process information. It is the faux authority of censorship which causes such a practice to appear unreliable. In the U.S., the first amendment exists, in part, because we need voters who engage vigorously with the world of ideas. Compulsory liberal education exists to prepare people with the skills to do so. No such obligation exists for code reviews, which is just one reason why this is a bad analogy. And yeah, you "should" be able to get away with just reading headlines, but in practice what happens? You get an ignorant, disengaged population that sees the world through the eyes of the people who (in essence) write headlines for people who only read headlines. The solution is probably not to say "oh, we just need better headline", it's for people to increase their critical reading skills and their engagement with information that is (to step into the dangerous world of software analogies) 'closer to the metal'.