Internet - too much, too fast, too unreliable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Evo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Internet
Click For Summary
The discussion highlights concerns about the overwhelming amount of information available on the internet, often lacking verification and credibility. Participants note that the immediacy and global connectivity of the internet can lead to the rapid spread of misinformation, with sensational stories often preferred over accurate reporting. There is a recognition that human nature tends to accept repeated claims as truth, contributing to the proliferation of nonsense online. Suggestions include creating a filtered intranet to combat misinformation and fostering a more skeptical, informed online community. Ultimately, the conversation reflects a shared anxiety about the reliability of information in the digital age.
  • #31
Ivan Seeking said:
What about before something important happens? Do you vote retroactively?
I don't sweat elections much. I vote by party.
 
Physics 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
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
9K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
119
Views
28K