[sorcerer-mar]

Okay then, apply the "you" to "one who your comments ring true to."

I understand the dynamic you're pointing to, but it's simply not something that's solvable from the institutional/scientific-community side. We cannot allow institutions to actually control media, nor can we allow science to "go private."

The responsibility, which you and I both should reaffirm, is that individuals need to better manage their own information ecosystem and diet!

Do you have another solution?

[reylas]

sorry, you are missing the point on the first one. I gave my opinion on what is affecting the situation. I used simple examples that did not apply to me. Sorry.

As for solutions? What about ramifications for any media that cannot backup what it says? What about people being held responsible for what they spread?

[sorcerer-mar]

Apologies for my misunderstanding!

> As for solutions? What about ramifications for any media that cannot backup what it says? What about people being held responsible for what they spread?

I mean... effectively not possible in the US (First Amendment). Gnarly situation as the cost of producing bullshit plummets to zero, or goes negative since you can earn money from it, while the cost to find and publish truth continues to rise.

[reylas]

Agree. The First Amendment, which I totally will fight for, comes with good and bad doesn't it. I personally feel (means a lot doesn't it :) that there should be a way to punish "commercial press" for spreading misinfo, but I also see the slippery slope come into play.

It has its warts, but the first amendment needs to be protected.