"Sold out" is a real problem. More people than we want to admit see corruption coupled with big media as a enemy, not a thing to be trusted. Many ordinary people flat out do not know when to trust, so they don't.
They then seek others and continue to have conversations, and they find others lacking trust resonates and that opens the door for a lot of BS normally and easily seen.
Just an example of the difficulty we now face:
Hiding YouTube dislikes will, among other effects, serve to help big corporate media compete against new media.
Hiding the dislikes also breeds more mistrust. This is unavoidable no matter how reasoned the move is.
Public trust in corporate media is really low, and the younger a potential user of that media is the worse those metrics are.
Had that same media held more closely to journalism, rather than access journalism, which is essentially a sales job, the trust problems we struggle with today would not have grown into the chronic problem it all is today.
You identified politicians committing similar abuse of the public trust.
Look at Russiagate. Basically, it flat out did not happen the way many believed it did. Back when that started, many and myself included went to the original documents, saw speculation and in some cases saw it helpfully color coded, and turned on the news only to see all that elevated to fact.
That scared me frankly.
What can one conclude?
I do not see how judging others helps right now. Not saying anyone did here, but I am saying that is happening a lot and when it happens the door for good info to find it's way home gets closed. Advocates render their efforts far less potent.
Secondly, the lack of trust really can't be assigned to people. We have a lot of "they are stupid" type discussion, judgement and rationalization going on and very little of that is helpful.
ie: 70 million people voted for...
That is a real mess and the people who had a far better position of authority and trust denigrated that themselves, and for dollars and ratings.
All that is a real mess!
How can authorities, who have abused public trust be counted on to fact check and improve on misinformation without amplifying the already chronic trust problems they created?
In a more basic sense, how can we improve on public trust at all?
I am not sure how that is done quickly.
Longer term, we need media that makes informing people a priority. And doing that likely means a move away from the current AD and access based media we have now.
Given how things are right now, the more important thing is to avoid judgement of others and encourage more and better information exchange. We will not know what reaches people, until it does.
Once it does, we need those people to continue seeking better information so we see more people making better choices more of the time.
I have slowly come to the conclusion that maybe we grew up a bit too fast with respect to media and social media in particular. In the past change to society came slow and we could internalize and stabilize it before the next round of changes appeared.
Now the changes are coming so fast and are so drastic that we as society - including our legal system - have no way of keeping up with it. Technology routinely moves from one phase to the next before the legal framework has caught up with it. This translates into effectively operating without a legal framework for a very important chunk of society.
That's dangerous territory. I don't have any solutions and I'm sure that there are plenty of people that disagree with me but I've gone from a technophile to being very skeptical about the degree to which I allow tech into my life. Familiarity breeds contempt, or something to that effect.
However, and as a thought exercise, say we did not go down the Citizens United path after Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine, and Clinton Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Social media viewed through that lens, one where both the public interest is a thing we recognize must at least compete with profit, and the public trust is recognized and maintained as the high value part of our Democracy it is.
I do not disagree with you about tech and the law being behind. And right now we remain in a particularly difficult time due to so many legislators not understanding tech well enough to perform their role as well as it needs to be performed.
That said, our difficulty right now is greatly exacerbated by basic policy priority shifts that happened well in advance of tech.
Owning that is particularly difficult too. Money and markets are a higher priority than the public interest is, and that is true for government as well as big media.
The vacuum was there and significant, leaving tech, social media to rapidly expand into it.
Had that time been one of more robust public trust, social media would have to compete much harder, and regulation may well have both been more effective as well as earlier, more robust in its positive impact.
That will be true for very large numbers of people. Not their fault at all. It simply does not happen that a population all ends up able to sort these kinds of things out.
Implying they should is fine in the sense of self improvement, but as policy? Nope.
Perhaps it is time we, as concerned people, begin to take much harder look at our national priorities and demand the public interest be far better served than it is today.
Having done that, and sadly we are no where close to the basic consensus needed, we will find painful discussions like this one are a lot less frequent.
Know what I did not see in this exchange?
"Yes! You got there. How can we reach more people and help get past this?"
Feels a lot more like, "better late than never, and you need to do much better."
They then seek others and continue to have conversations, and they find others lacking trust resonates and that opens the door for a lot of BS normally and easily seen.
Just an example of the difficulty we now face:
Hiding YouTube dislikes will, among other effects, serve to help big corporate media compete against new media.
Hiding the dislikes also breeds more mistrust. This is unavoidable no matter how reasoned the move is.
Public trust in corporate media is really low, and the younger a potential user of that media is the worse those metrics are.
Had that same media held more closely to journalism, rather than access journalism, which is essentially a sales job, the trust problems we struggle with today would not have grown into the chronic problem it all is today.
You identified politicians committing similar abuse of the public trust.
Look at Russiagate. Basically, it flat out did not happen the way many believed it did. Back when that started, many and myself included went to the original documents, saw speculation and in some cases saw it helpfully color coded, and turned on the news only to see all that elevated to fact.
That scared me frankly.
What can one conclude?
I do not see how judging others helps right now. Not saying anyone did here, but I am saying that is happening a lot and when it happens the door for good info to find it's way home gets closed. Advocates render their efforts far less potent.
Secondly, the lack of trust really can't be assigned to people. We have a lot of "they are stupid" type discussion, judgement and rationalization going on and very little of that is helpful.
ie: 70 million people voted for...
That is a real mess and the people who had a far better position of authority and trust denigrated that themselves, and for dollars and ratings.
All that is a real mess!
How can authorities, who have abused public trust be counted on to fact check and improve on misinformation without amplifying the already chronic trust problems they created?
In a more basic sense, how can we improve on public trust at all?
I am not sure how that is done quickly.
Longer term, we need media that makes informing people a priority. And doing that likely means a move away from the current AD and access based media we have now.
Given how things are right now, the more important thing is to avoid judgement of others and encourage more and better information exchange. We will not know what reaches people, until it does.
Once it does, we need those people to continue seeking better information so we see more people making better choices more of the time.
reply