[_y5hn]

Maybe part of the problem is this: People read paper as paper, something somebody clearly has written. We know that it was printed in 1980 and full of flaws compared to today's knowledge, but maybe also some insights.

Online material we read like facts, even when it's opinion, we rarely check dates and don't think of the content as dated. Also anyone can publish anything, including deceptive texts, as the barrier to entry is much lower. The cost is next to free.

People also engage more actively with online material, internalizing anything, even when it's garbage and transitory.

As has been said here with social media, there's lack of quality controls, but also distrust in quality measures.

Somehow, I'm not convinced all the online material is worth reading, but the trick is how to make sure people engage in quality without reducing freedom and differing opinions.