The fundamental problem is this: we tend to think about democracy as a phenomenon that depends on the knowledge and capacities of individual citizens, even though, like markets and bureaucracies, it is a profoundly collective enterprise………………….Making individuals better at thinking and seeing the blind spots in their own individual reasoning will only go so far. What we need are better collective means of thinking.
I think there is a lot of validity to this way of looking at things. We need new types of institutions to deal with the 21st century information world. When it comes to politics and information, much of our ideas and models for organizing and thinking about things come from the 18th,19th & 20th centuries.
Most countries of the world use some form of parliamentary government; a system that was perfected with the late 18th century French & American revolutions, and hasn't changed much since.
Meanwhile, our ideas about information and governance are still largely stuck in the 20th world of mass media dominated by small numbers of TV stations and newspapers.
It's unrealistic to put all the burden of establishing truth on individuals. With the best will in the world, how could any one person know enough about everything going on in the world to figure out the truth?
We're getting the social media crisis wrong: The bigger problem isn't disinformation at the individual level. It's degraded and out of date governance and information institutions.
byu/lughnasadh inFuturology
4 Comments
Social media only works as a tool of manipulation because people were never taught critical thinking; how to contextualize the information they are presented with..
Who is relaying this message? Whats their history or connection to the topic? Are they objective? Do they carry bias? Is their information factually correct?
Individuals arguing with bots on Twitter have probably never asked themselves any of those questions. And their school teachers probably never did either. Or their parents.
I think community notes does a great job on X (and soon to be on Meta). Does this not addresses the articles point of “what we need are better collective means of thinking”? This article was done by someone who wanted to see their own writing on a screen and is a complete waste of time to read.
It has existed in the past, it’s just been eroded due to a lack of money as news has been commodified (and by the way this is something everyone did see coming).
There’s something called journalist method, much like scientific method but sadly cost cutting and the need to be quick means many journalists now take shortcuts.
There was also ideas such as the Journalistic Creed, sort of like the Hippocratic Oath doctors sign.
Sadly it seems not many people know this for some reason, I remember learning it in school.
I think just this basic knowledge even would protect society from the grifters calling it “legacy media” and profiting off the ensuing chaos.
Yes journalists should be better but no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If you think this issue impacts only commoners who suck up everything: researchers are creating a glut of false studies and data for money, which floods all areas of expertise. It works like the bot farms we see on all social medias, bit it’s consequences are even harder. Even big publishers share bogous, but peer reviewed false studies.
Dead Internet will come true.