[Uberphallus]

Me too, but most people can't be trusted to decide for themselves and are lead to believe crazy shit only because it brings ad revenue in the best case, because of interests of bad actors in the worst.

Where to draw the line is the point of the discussion, because the democracy of the viral nonsense is causing more damage than a straight up dictatorship, IMO.

[daze42]

This view, though probably correct, is incompatible with democracy. We can't have rule by the people if the people aren't capable of ruling themselves. I still believe democracy is the best way forward, but it depends on critical thinking and there seems to be a decline in that area recently.

[DistressedDrone]

> it depends on critical thinking and there seems to be a decline in that area recently.

Respectfully, I call bullshit. There has always been a lack of critical thinking, we just didn't have the internet to bear witness. I think people are complaining about a lack of critical thinking more now because there are more educated people around to think critically.

So I agree that we need critical thinking, but let's not be alarmists about it just because some people are dumb or voted dumb people in.

[Uberphallus]

Yeah I don't think critical thinking is worse than before, it's just being amplified by the feedback loop that social media has become.

[AnimalMuppet]

Some time ago, here on HN, user api described social media as a "hate laser". I thought that was a brilliant term - stimulated emissions of hate. But maybe social media is a "stupid laser" as well.

[decebalus1]

> This view, though probably correct, is incompatible with democracy.

Which is fine, because (at least in the US) we don't live in a democracy. These views are very compatible with a plutocracy, which is what we currently have.

[sneak]

It's supremely arrogant to believe that you can decide for yourself, but "most people can't be trusted to decide for themselves".

Let people make their own decisions.

[Uberphallus]

It might be arrogant, but not supremely. Maybe the line leaves me out of deciding the content I can consume. I'm pretty stupid out of my fields of interest anyway.

Joking aside, it's taken me lots of effort, but if anything is important to me, my life, or my loved ones, I double check it, even if I agree with it or I'm naturally inclined to believe it. I've also learnt to love to stand corrected, and to say that I'm wrong.

But that's unfortunately above what most people I deal with on a daily basis are able or willing to do, supremely so when you bring religion or politics in the mix. And that's normal, and thoroughly studied[0]. That also means that, in many subjects, people already made up their minds and aren't actually taking decisions, as you suggest they are, but having psychological knee-jerk reactions.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance

[ben_w]

Sure, but they didn’t say they were any better.

I mean, it’s not like I know much about civil engineering, or trade policy, or diplomacy, or law, or policing, or military and defence issues, or agriculture and food stability, or economics, or education policy, other than that most of these are things you can get degrees (or equivalent) in, and if I spend three years studying each of them I’d still be a much of a noob in those topics as someone who thinks “lines of code is a good measure of productivity” is in the world of software.

I still believe democracy is better than any known alternative; it just isn’t, y’know, flawless.

[mrfusion]

This is how they steal free speech from you. Make you believe that adults aren’t capable of managing their lives or beliefs.

[bashinator]

How do you explain QAnon, then?

[AnimalMuppet]

QAnon may prove that (at least some) adults aren't capable of managing their lives or beliefs. Even if that is true, though, free speech is still worth preserving, because the alternative is worse.