>Once we take the counterfeits for granted, we may begin doubting the veracity of all the information presented to us through media. Hmm, that's not a totally

>Once we take the counterfeits for granted, we may begin doubting the veracity of all the information presented to us through media. Hmm, that's not a totally new stuff. I mean, anyone taking take time to document themselves about how mass media work should already be acquainted by the fact that anything you get in them is either bare propaganda or some catch eye trigger void of any information to attract audience. There is no way an independent professional can make a living while staying in integrity with the will to provide relevant feedback without falling in this or that truism. Audience is already captured by other giant dumping schemes. Think "fabric of the consent". So the big change that might occurs here, is the distribution of how many people do believe what they get thrown at there face. Also, the only thing that you might previously be taken as only reliable information in a publication was that the utterer of the sentence knew the words emitted, or at least had the ability to utter its form. Now you still don't know if the utterer had any sense of the sentence spoken, but you don't even know if the person could actually even utter it, let alone have ever been aware of the associated concepts and notions.