[kadendogthing]

>NYtimes seems hellbent on convincing people that any information that is not vetted by other humans of authority (preferably themselves) is a danger to society that must be banned.

I mean it objectively is.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2314.html

Stop assuming rational actors when the evidence is telling you there are none.

>Then again most of us know that the internet is a wild west and thats why we loved it.

You'd have to pretty obtuse to ignore the harm this "wild west" (nice romantic framing) has done to several western countries.

[philwelch]

Has it never occurred to you that perhaps institutional "authorities" who are empowered to "vet" information (before it is consumed by a fragile and untrustworthy public) may, in fact, be the greater danger?

[apatters]

Are you opposed to having intermediaries period, or the particular set of intermediaries that command the largest audiences today? The distinction is important because intermediaries can add valuable context and analysis (we just happen to have a lot of low quality ones imo).

[philwelch]

I'm not opposed to having intermediaries. I'm opposed to having a media environment where only particular established and "trusted" intermediaries are capable of disseminating information to the public. While imperfect, I consider it, on net, to be a very good and healthy aspect of our society today that no one holds the kind of institutional power over public information once held by, for example, Walter Cronkite and his employers. Not because Cronkite and CBS were particularly untrustworthy, but because that degree of centralized power posed a tremendous risk.

Not only do I not trust corporate media institutions with that kind of power generally, I am even more distrustful of corporate media institutions that push the narrative that they should have that kind of power. Not just because it's good practice never to give power to someone who obviously wants it that badly, but because the way in which they are campaigning it is itself tendentious and, at times, dishonest--which only makes them even more obviously untrustworthy.

Oddly enough, the heyday of the American newspaper and "yellow journalism" seems to be not too far off from today's era. Hearst and Pulitzer would barely miss a beat in today's clickbait environment. We survived that era because Americans learned not to believe everything they read. It's a shame that the media oligopolies of the 20th century gave them the opportunity to forget.

[smsm42]

> Stop assuming rational actors when the evidence is telling you there are none.

So you are assuming people are irrational and trying to convince them to rationally act according to rational arguments you provide? Looks like you don't even believe you own assumptions.

[kadendogthing]

No. Not sure why you think you can so bluntly pretend I said things I didn't say.

But again this is HN attempting to discuss civics so I shouldn't be surprised.

[buboard]

You know what, if we assume that most people people are too gullible and dumb to live in a society, there is no longer any reason to uphold the social contract. It's not set in stone that i must live in a democracy if half of them are not fit for it.

(Predictable irrational downvotes only serve to prove this point)

[kadendogthing]

>if we assume that most people people are too gullible and dumb to live in a society

Most people don't have the experience to properly discern information that they aren't intimately familiar with. They don't practice it. They don't have jobs requiring it.

You probably can't run a marathon if you've never trained before. Why are we assuming it's any different with information?

>there is no longer any reason to uphold the social contract.

Explain.

[philwelch]

Well, these are the necessary skills for the citizen of a democracy to have and to exercise properly. If you're going to assume that the majority of people are incapable of gaining that skill, the only logical conclusion is that democracy is a mistake.

[buboard]

the social contract in democracies relies on trusting the judgement of your compatriots. if they cant be trusted you don't have to pretend they can, or that you can have a democracy or that they are your compatriots. e.g. Why should i pay the taxes that distrustful people instituted?

If we stop assuming a reasonable level or rationality on the electorate , then why choose to have a democracy - that's irrational

[kadendogthing]

We don't have direct democracy. We don't usually rely on any form of democracy for a large set of actions we take as a society.

So I truly don't understand your confusion.