3 ms·

Better to be uninformed than misinformed, I suppose. Pity that it's so difficult nowadays to be accurately informed about anything.

by glonq 3y ago

lucb1e 3y ago
Nowadays, as compared to...? I guess you mean the period in human civilization where there was widespread literacy but also a high cost of mass producing and distributing texts, assuming people with money to invest in reporters can't be stupid or misinformed. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/literate-and-illiterate-world-population https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/literate-and-illiterate-w... Depending on where you draw that line, that never really happened (I would call 'widespread' around 80%, which happened in 2000 but then there was already an internet, although it was a niche and playful version of what it is today).
- glonq 3y ago
  Not "nowadays" in the sense that things were only rosy and great "in the old days". Rather, this kind of thing seems to ebb and flow a bit. And right now it smells like low tide.
  - lucb1e 3y ago
    Could be. I wonder if we could (or if anyone has) poll(ed) people on opinions and, with hindsight, establish an actual truth, or at least the best possible guess at it, and see how different things affect that I feel like my generation (90s) is a lot better informed than almost any parent, let alone grandparent. But maybe that's too long a scale and you rather mean low tide on the span of the past handful of years, on which I don't really have an opinion / can't really say
  - itairall 3y ago
    This is nonsense. People are more informed than ever before. The past looks better only because it is a distorted view from a lack of information at that time.
delecti 3y ago
I wouldn't be so optimistic. I'm sure facebook can't perfectly categorize every link into "news" or "not news", but I imagine this means Canadian FB will be full of nearly as much misinformation but less real information.
djoldman 3y ago
If people want news that's about as unbiased and objective as possible there has always been: https://apnews.com/ https://apnews.com/ https://www.reuters.com/ https://www.reuters.com/ Hot take: People don't read them as much because people don't read "news" to be informed in an unbiased manner, they read news to be entertained.

Better to be uninformed than misinformed, I suppose. Pity that it's so difficult nowadays to be accurately informed about anything.

by glonq 3y ago

Better to be uninformed than misinformed, I suppose. Pity that it's so difficult nowadays to be accurately informed about anything.

lucb1e 3y ago

Nowadays, as compared to...? I guess you mean the period in human civilization where there was widespread literacy but also a high cost of mass producing and distributing texts, assuming people with money to invest in reporters can't be stupid or misinformed. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/literate-and-illiterate-world-population https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/literate-and-illiterate-w... Depending on where you draw that line, that never really happened (I would call 'widespread' around 80%, which happened in 2000 but then there was already an internet, although it was a niche and playful version of what it is today).

glonq 3y ago
Not "nowadays" in the sense that things were only rosy and great "in the old days". Rather, this kind of thing seems to ebb and flow a bit. And right now it smells like low tide.
- lucb1e 3y ago
  Could be. I wonder if we could (or if anyone has) poll(ed) people on opinions and, with hindsight, establish an actual truth, or at least the best possible guess at it, and see how different things affect that I feel like my generation (90s) is a lot better informed than almost any parent, let alone grandparent. But maybe that's too long a scale and you rather mean low tide on the span of the past handful of years, on which I don't really have an opinion / can't really say
- itairall 3y ago
  This is nonsense. People are more informed than ever before. The past looks better only because it is a distorted view from a lack of information at that time.

delecti 3y ago

I wouldn't be so optimistic. I'm sure facebook can't perfectly categorize every link into "news" or "not news", but I imagine this means Canadian FB will be full of nearly as much misinformation but less real information.

djoldman 3y ago

If people want news that's about as unbiased and objective as possible there has always been: https://apnews.com/ https://apnews.com/ https://www.reuters.com/ https://www.reuters.com/ Hot take: People don't read them as much because people don't read "news" to be informed in an unbiased manner, they read news to be entertained.