[jerf]

The problem with the problem is that it just... is. You can't consume all the information you possibly can come into contact with. You must filter it somehow. All filters will induce biases. Any filter that claims to somehow be unbiased just means that it matches the biases of whoever created the filter so thoroughly they can't see it, but it's still a filter. If you decide to periodically randomize things, that's part of your filter. If you give up, that just means you're filtering everything.

You can discuss desirable characteristics of filters, but you rapidly run up against the twin problems of how your characteristics are subjective, and the fact that you don't really fully understand how filters will affect you anyhow so it's all speculation. Perhaps that later point will go away as we have more experience but it's going to be hard to share those experiences with each other; they serialize into English poorly.

I think it seems like an interesting problem at first, it's something you should know about and it's worth upvoting the occasional mention of it... but there is really very little to say that isn't really about some other topic entirely (epistemology, ethics, validity of other philosophical or political viewpoints, etc.). There's not all that much interesting stuff to say about it, in the end.

[spacemanaki]

I guess I was approaching it from a technical debunking perspective, but what you say makes a lot of sense. I'll ponder this.