4 ms·

> information being free is subject to whatever powerful group is in charge at that moment The mainstream media outlets dont really change hands often. The vas

> information being free is subject to whatever powerful group is in charge at that moment The mainstream media outlets dont really change hands often. The vast majority of people are already subject to the whims and biases of said media organisations. More information being available is unlikely to change that. We already can't parse the amount of information available today.

squigz 2y ago
> More information being available is unlikely to change that. No, it's not. Education is though. > We already can't parse the amount of information available today. You're right, we can't. But more ignorance is hardly the solution I'd opt for.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  Whose education, then? People can be educated in all sorts of different ways.
  - squigz 2y ago
    I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Who would be educated? Everyone, I would hope. Whose education would they be given? As in, what education plan? I would say one devised by teachers and educational experts, the goal of which (in the context of this discussion) would be to educate children on things like critical thinking, media literacy, recognizing propaganda, etc.
    - HPsquared 2y ago
      I mean they could be educated in something other than our standard tradition. For example someone educated in NK under the ideology of "the Juche idea" will have very different reactions to media than we would have.
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  Why does ‘more ignorance’ matter if the current smaller quantity is already beyond you? (And realistically for pretty much everyone, zero prospects of grasping even 90% of what’s currently available)
  - squigz 2y ago
    Just because it's beyond me or you doesn't mean it's beyond everyone else. The point GP made that it seems most people have missed, is that we need to recognize that we almost always lack the necessary context and expertise to understand something. One potential response to that realization is more ignorance, yes, I suppose. Another might be looking for people with the necessary expertise to understand something and get their input on it.
    - MichaelZuo 2y ago
      Getting the input from someone, means not getting the input from someone else… in that unit of time. So it doesn’t make a difference? (Assuming there are way more potential inputs than you have lifespan to receive, which is already the case) And I’m pretty sure it’s the case for everyone, since even if someone is 10x smarter than Einstein, they will still only have 24 hours a day. And their neurons have a chemical upper limit in processing speed.
      - squigz 2y ago
        What point are you trying to make, exactly?
        MichaelZuo 2y ago
        I’m not sure, because I was the one who asked you, why does this matter?
        squigz 2y ago
        I'm not going to argue for the sake of arguing. If you have a position you're arguing from, at least try to articulate it, otherwise I'm done with this conversation.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> vast majority of people are already subject to the whims and biases of said media organisations The least-informed people, today, are not the ones who shun mainstream media.
- hkt 2y ago
  I take this to imply a dichotomy that does not exist: it isn't just MSM vs the rest. There is a lively, informative section of the press which is dedicated to specialist topics, or specialist treatment of current affairs, etc. Le Monde Diplomatique is a great example of this: a relatively narrow readership, fortnightly publication, and high quality articles written by experts who are good at communicating with the public. By contrast, most people who talk about non-MSM outlets are referring to places that publish actual fiction, YouTube channels, or thinly veiled propaganda outlets.

squigz 2y ago

> More information being available is unlikely to change that. No, it's not. Education is though. > We already can't parse the amount of information available today. You're right, we can't. But more ignorance is hardly the solution I'd opt for.

HPsquared 2y ago
Whose education, then? People can be educated in all sorts of different ways.
- squigz 2y ago
  I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Who would be educated? Everyone, I would hope. Whose education would they be given? As in, what education plan? I would say one devised by teachers and educational experts, the goal of which (in the context of this discussion) would be to educate children on things like critical thinking, media literacy, recognizing propaganda, etc.
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    I mean they could be educated in something other than our standard tradition. For example someone educated in NK under the ideology of "the Juche idea" will have very different reactions to media than we would have.
MichaelZuo 2y ago
Why does ‘more ignorance’ matter if the current smaller quantity is already beyond you? (And realistically for pretty much everyone, zero prospects of grasping even 90% of what’s currently available)
- squigz 2y ago
  Just because it's beyond me or you doesn't mean it's beyond everyone else. The point GP made that it seems most people have missed, is that we need to recognize that we almost always lack the necessary context and expertise to understand something. One potential response to that realization is more ignorance, yes, I suppose. Another might be looking for people with the necessary expertise to understand something and get their input on it.
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    Getting the input from someone, means not getting the input from someone else… in that unit of time. So it doesn’t make a difference? (Assuming there are way more potential inputs than you have lifespan to receive, which is already the case) And I’m pretty sure it’s the case for everyone, since even if someone is 10x smarter than Einstein, they will still only have 24 hours a day. And their neurons have a chemical upper limit in processing speed.
    - squigz 2y ago
      What point are you trying to make, exactly?
      - MichaelZuo 2y ago
        I’m not sure, because I was the one who asked you, why does this matter?
        squigz 2y ago
        I'm not going to argue for the sake of arguing. If you have a position you're arguing from, at least try to articulate it, otherwise I'm done with this conversation.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> vast majority of people are already subject to the whims and biases of said media organisations The least-informed people, today, are not the ones who shun mainstream media.

hkt 2y ago
I take this to imply a dichotomy that does not exist: it isn't just MSM vs the rest. There is a lively, informative section of the press which is dedicated to specialist topics, or specialist treatment of current affairs, etc. Le Monde Diplomatique is a great example of this: a relatively narrow readership, fortnightly publication, and high quality articles written by experts who are good at communicating with the public. By contrast, most people who talk about non-MSM outlets are referring to places that publish actual fiction, YouTube channels, or thinly veiled propaganda outlets.