3 ms·

> Prior to around 2000 we didn't have the internet and there wasn't close to as much transparency in society about how the mechanics functioned [Citation neede

> Prior to around 2000 we didn't have the internet and there wasn't close to as much transparency in society about how the mechanics functioned [Citation needed] Investigative journalism existed, stuff like "manufacturing consent" was published in the '80s, and I'm pretty sure you could always obtain records of parliament sessions, I know in Italy they were all broadcast on the radio (they still are). Things are easier to access without intermediation but it's not such a qualitative change, IMO.

roenxi 2y ago
> I'm pretty sure you could always obtain records of parliament sessions, I know in Italy they were all broadcast on the radio (they still are). Are you joking? The quality of that is nowhere near what we have today. I can't very well ring the radio station up to ask them to broadcast a speech I'm interested in from 3 months ago on my lunch break or stick to a specific candidate's record for an evening peruse. Even if they were willing to the scaling properties of that approach are unworkable. > Investigative journalism existed Assange dumped more information in a fortnight than an investigative journalist could cover in a decade. We're talking orders of magnitude improvements here. If you're not seriously interested in politics I can see how nothing much has changed, but for anyone taking a deep interest the world is completely different now.
- b112 2y ago
  Indeed. If anything you're understating it.
- insanejudge 2y ago
  Gaining access to vast quantities of raw information while as the same time losing the addition of analysis by experts, verification of sources and empirical facts, and the context those can provide (rather than complementing them) is in most respects a large net negative to real knowledge in a society. Over half of people get information from algorithmically driven and typically anonymous human-curated feeds of stories and opinions, and for a major portion of them, this has displaced journalism entirely -- with the notable exception of anyone claiming to blow the whistle which in itself has been perverting incentives. Expecting people to read beyond the headlines has always been a tall order, but the practice is currently facing extinction while media quality is in a race to the bottom competing for the same attention. One could for instance be dedicated to events and anecdotes by or about the dozens of people struck by lightning every month and present a credible-seeming case that lightning strikes are escalating and now an eminent danger to people at large. The reality of this has been happening across the board for even much rarer events in the last few years, in a way that some might say exploits confirmation bias. Maybe it's a pendulum swing that will return, but at the moment the long term trend is towards a return to oral tradition and a pre-telegraph level of shared common knowledge of current events, recent history, and so on.
- Qwertious 2y ago
  We definitely have more data which can be useful, but the signal-to-noise ratio has quite possibly gotten worse.
A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
I think the difference is the speed at which we arrive at the societal consensus. Case in point, recent debate. The thing had real time memes and reactions ( including BPU one ) and immediate damage control on various fora ( and fascinating stuff on reddit where stuff is already prone to be an echo chamber ) and all of that coalescing into the meta-conversation we are having today mere days after a, I would argue, a big political event, whose waves are yet to wash ashore. Manufacturing consent helps to understand the mechanics of how it works, but it did not really change; it just got quicker.

roenxi 2y ago

> I'm pretty sure you could always obtain records of parliament sessions, I know in Italy they were all broadcast on the radio (they still are). Are you joking? The quality of that is nowhere near what we have today. I can't very well ring the radio station up to ask them to broadcast a speech I'm interested in from 3 months ago on my lunch break or stick to a specific candidate's record for an evening peruse. Even if they were willing to the scaling properties of that approach are unworkable. > Investigative journalism existed Assange dumped more information in a fortnight than an investigative journalist could cover in a decade. We're talking orders of magnitude improvements here. If you're not seriously interested in politics I can see how nothing much has changed, but for anyone taking a deep interest the world is completely different now.

b112 2y ago
Indeed. If anything you're understating it.
insanejudge 2y ago
Gaining access to vast quantities of raw information while as the same time losing the addition of analysis by experts, verification of sources and empirical facts, and the context those can provide (rather than complementing them) is in most respects a large net negative to real knowledge in a society. Over half of people get information from algorithmically driven and typically anonymous human-curated feeds of stories and opinions, and for a major portion of them, this has displaced journalism entirely -- with the notable exception of anyone claiming to blow the whistle which in itself has been perverting incentives. Expecting people to read beyond the headlines has always been a tall order, but the practice is currently facing extinction while media quality is in a race to the bottom competing for the same attention. One could for instance be dedicated to events and anecdotes by or about the dozens of people struck by lightning every month and present a credible-seeming case that lightning strikes are escalating and now an eminent danger to people at large. The reality of this has been happening across the board for even much rarer events in the last few years, in a way that some might say exploits confirmation bias. Maybe it's a pendulum swing that will return, but at the moment the long term trend is towards a return to oral tradition and a pre-telegraph level of shared common knowledge of current events, recent history, and so on.
Qwertious 2y ago
We definitely have more data which can be useful, but the signal-to-noise ratio has quite possibly gotten worse.

A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago

I think the difference is the speed at which we arrive at the societal consensus. Case in point, recent debate. The thing had real time memes and reactions ( including BPU one ) and immediate damage control on various fora ( and fascinating stuff on reddit where stuff is already prone to be an echo chamber ) and all of that coalescing into the meta-conversation we are having today mere days after a, I would argue, a big political event, whose waves are yet to wash ashore. Manufacturing consent helps to understand the mechanics of how it works, but it did not really change; it just got quicker.