[kadendogthing]

>NYtimes seems hellbent on convincing people that any information that is not vetted by other humans of authority (preferably themselves) is a danger to society that must be banned.

I mean it objectively is.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2314.html

Stop assuming rational actors when the evidence is telling you there are none.

>Then again most of us know that the internet is a wild west and thats why we loved it.

You'd have to pretty obtuse to ignore the harm this "wild west" (nice romantic framing) has done to several western countries.

[philwelch]

Has it never occurred to you that perhaps institutional "authorities" who are empowered to "vet" information (before it is consumed by a fragile and untrustworthy public) may, in fact, be the greater danger?

[apatters]

Are you opposed to having intermediaries period, or the particular set of intermediaries that command the largest audiences today? The distinction is important because intermediaries can add valuable context and analysis (we just happen to have a lot of low quality ones imo).

[smsm42]

> Stop assuming rational actors when the evidence is telling you there are none.

So you are assuming people are irrational and trying to convince them to rationally act according to rational arguments you provide? Looks like you don't even believe you own assumptions.

[kadendogthing]

No. Not sure why you think you can so bluntly pretend I said things I didn't say.

But again this is HN attempting to discuss civics so I shouldn't be surprised.

[buboard]

You know what, if we assume that most people people are too gullible and dumb to live in a society, there is no longer any reason to uphold the social contract. It's not set in stone that i must live in a democracy if half of them are not fit for it.

(Predictable irrational downvotes only serve to prove this point)

[kadendogthing]

>if we assume that most people people are too gullible and dumb to live in a society

Most people don't have the experience to properly discern information that they aren't intimately familiar with. They don't practice it. They don't have jobs requiring it.

You probably can't run a marathon if you've never trained before. Why are we assuming it's any different with information?

>there is no longer any reason to uphold the social contract.

Explain.