Internet - too much, too fast, too unreliable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Evo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Internet
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the perceived chaos and unreliability of information on the internet, particularly in relation to news reporting and the propagation of sensationalism. Participants explore the implications of immediate access to information and the challenges it presents in discerning truth from misinformation. The conversation touches on historical perspectives and generational concerns regarding media consumption.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern that the internet's immediacy and global connectivity lead to the spread of misinformation and sensationalism, questioning if this is a new phenomenon or a continuation of historical trends.
  • Others argue that sensationalism has always existed, suggesting that every generation has faced similar concerns about media consumption.
  • There are reflections on human nature's tendency to prefer sensational explanations over more complex truths, with some participants noting that this has been exacerbated by the speed at which information spreads online.
  • A few participants propose that the internet allows for quicker fact-checking and correction of misinformation compared to previous eras, although this also leads to a faster spread of falsehoods.
  • Some contributions highlight the role of public intellectuals and the need for accountability in information dissemination, contrasting traditional media with the less regulated nature of the internet.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the impact of the internet on information reliability. While some acknowledge the historical continuity of sensationalism, others emphasize the unique challenges posed by the internet's rapid information flow. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views on the implications of these dynamics.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference historical media consumption patterns and the evolution of information dissemination, indicating that assumptions about the internet's impact may depend on individual perspectives and experiences. There is a noted lack of consensus on whether the current state of information is worse than in the past.

  • #31
Ivan Seeking said:
What about before something important happens? Do you vote retroactively?
I don't sweat elections much. I vote by party.
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
  • #32
My influence is spreading.
 
  • #33
It seems to me that, in addition to the things mentioned here, the internet (and the large number of cable TV stations) is also contributing to the very polarized attitudes we have now, at least in the US. I think that before having access to all of these sites, people would read a few newspapers or watch a few television stations for their news reports. These gave a relatively balanced approach to the news. Now, people seem to only get information from the sites that agree with them, and are only rarely exposed to an alternate viewpoint. In the past, I don't think political opinions were so highly polarized as they are today, and this may be the reason. Does anyone else feel this way?
 
  • #34
phyzguy said:
It seems to me that, in addition to the things mentioned here, the internet (and the large number of cable TV stations) is also contributing to the very polarized attitudes we have now, at least in the US. I think that before having access to all of these sites, people would read a few newspapers or watch a few television stations for their news reports. These gave a relatively balanced approach to the news. Now, people seem to only get information from the sites that agree with them, and are only rarely exposed to an alternate viewpoint. In the past, I don't think political opinions were so highly polarized as they are today, and this may be the reason. Does anyone else feel this way?

In the past, you probably interacted mostly with people you knew personally and most of you probably had similar backgrounds. There were probably only a few of your friends that had radically different views from yours, yet had enough other positive things about them that you still hung around them.

Even in situations where you would be most likely to encounter people with radically different views, such as school or a bar for example, it probably took a lot to get them to really forcefully spout off all of their views when they're interacting with people in person.

I think polarized political opinions are just a lot more obvious today.

Of course, the side effect is that making those polarized opinions more obvious makes it easier to form and organize polarized groups and the result is politicians that are more polarized than they have been in the past.
 
  • #35
Proton Soup said:
internet was my intro to Chomsky.
Glad to hear that. Usually it's pourn that gets intro'd. Poor children, oversexed and underphuqed. Non sequiter you might say, but it is true.

don't know Dennett. think Dawkins is little more than an evangelical.
Dawkins has good reason to be angry.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
8K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K