The mainstream media outlets dont really change hands often. The vast majority of people are already subject to the whims and biases of said media organisations. More information being available is unlikely to change that. We already can't parse the amount of information available today.
No, it's not. Education is though.
> We already can't parse the amount of information available today.
You're right, we can't. But more ignorance is hardly the solution I'd opt for.
Who would be educated? Everyone, I would hope.
Whose education would they be given? As in, what education plan? I would say one devised by teachers and educational experts, the goal of which (in the context of this discussion) would be to educate children on things like critical thinking, media literacy, recognizing propaganda, etc.
(And realistically for pretty much everyone, zero prospects of grasping even 90% of what’s currently available)
The point GP made that it seems most people have missed, is that we need to recognize that we almost always lack the necessary context and expertise to understand something. One potential response to that realization is more ignorance, yes, I suppose. Another might be looking for people with the necessary expertise to understand something and get their input on it.
So it doesn’t make a difference?
(Assuming there are way more potential inputs than you have lifespan to receive, which is already the case)
And I’m pretty sure it’s the case for everyone, since even if someone is 10x smarter than Einstein, they will still only have 24 hours a day. And their neurons have a chemical upper limit in processing speed.
The least-informed people, today, are not the ones who shun mainstream media.
By contrast, most people who talk about non-MSM outlets are referring to places that publish actual fiction, YouTube channels, or thinly veiled propaganda outlets.
We’ve tried that. We’re probably in the era with the greatest individual access to information in human history. It’s mostly void screaming and sound bite selecting. We should still fight for free information. But that doesn’t mean we should be forced to give up the benefits of privacy and confidential dealings.
I'm not sure there's much evidence to suggest these are related. It's always been like this. Just because it's easier to see that now doesn't mean we should ignore the benefits this era brought.
> But that doesn’t mean we should be forced to give up the benefits of privacy and confidential dealings.
I don't think anyone suggested this.
> We’ve tried that.
So we keep trying? Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it's not worth doing.