> I do not think there is much evidence that misinformation has become more widespread, that this increase in misinformation is due to technological change, or that it is at the root of the political trends liberals are most angry about. If anything, people seem to be better-informed than in the past — which is what you would expect because our information technology has gotten better [...]
This kind of framing makes me feel very weary. There is plenty of evidence, but I'm not interested in going on a hunt.
Rather, let's think for just one second about how to model this:
- The number of "bad actors" probably has not changed significantly over time
- The cost of producing documents has gone down significantly
- The cost of diffusing documents, or information, per audience headcount, has gone down significantly
- Overall, the total volume of sketchy information produced yearly has been dramatically increasing as a result of these lowering barriers.
- Conversely, the total volume of quality information has clearly increased as well.
- The technological tools at our disposal, as consumers of content, have become more and more sophisticated, such that we now have access to more quality information than ever before in History.
- However, consuming quality content requires constant deliberate effort and prudence, and it is much easier to stumble upon crappy information, than it is to find quality information.
- The less expert you are at a subject, the more energy is required to sift through the crap.
- Most people are either not expert at anything, or are expert in a narrow field of interest.
- Information no longer flows in the same way it once did: it now diffuses through a social graph which is prone to significant network effects. Non-experts can have a bigger influence than experts, even when the information they share is entirely meritless. Echo-chambers form naturally and require a lot of deliberate and conscious effort to get out from. It is very difficult to reach certain pockets of the graph.
This kind of framing makes me feel very weary. There is plenty of evidence, but I'm not interested in going on a hunt.
Rather, let's think for just one second about how to model this:
- The number of "bad actors" probably has not changed significantly over time
- The cost of producing documents has gone down significantly
- The cost of diffusing documents, or information, per audience headcount, has gone down significantly
- Overall, the total volume of sketchy information produced yearly has been dramatically increasing as a result of these lowering barriers.
- Conversely, the total volume of quality information has clearly increased as well.
- The technological tools at our disposal, as consumers of content, have become more and more sophisticated, such that we now have access to more quality information than ever before in History.
- However, consuming quality content requires constant deliberate effort and prudence, and it is much easier to stumble upon crappy information, than it is to find quality information.
- The less expert you are at a subject, the more energy is required to sift through the crap.
- Most people are either not expert at anything, or are expert in a narrow field of interest.
- Information no longer flows in the same way it once did: it now diffuses through a social graph which is prone to significant network effects. Non-experts can have a bigger influence than experts, even when the information they share is entirely meritless. Echo-chambers form naturally and require a lot of deliberate and conscious effort to get out from. It is very difficult to reach certain pockets of the graph.