Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I've thought about this a lot too and I think about a few things:

- The barrier to creating and distributing content was higher (it still had to capture people's attention).

- We didn't have all the tools to artificially create content, just our imaginations.

I'm no doomer by any means, and I think it's useful to look back at history for clues as to how to manage it but it's hard to find clues when the situation is so different.

I still believe education and critical thinking are the best antidote for disinformation, but higher education in the US has continued to come under attack (and perhaps rightfully so with the costs rising extremely out of proportion to inflation).



> The barrier to creating and distributing content was higher.

The printing press lowered the barrier to distributing ideas. The internet lowered the barrier further.

In each case, there is a period of social turmoil as society "catches up". The Peasants' War, Müntzer, the Münster Rebellion, Matthys, Hoffman, and on and on are all events and products of the change in availability of printed word.

We developed social technologies to counter the faults exploited by increased information availability. "Don't believe everything you read," is a meme which acts against the bias exploited by highly available text. The invention of journals, newspapers, and citations all act in the same way.

We haven't developed enough new social technologies to counter the change in information availability. Our existing techniques aren't enough to hold tide and frankly, like all change, going back is never an option, but finding new ways to exist are.


Maybe Elon Musk should enter the education game too.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: