Gonna have to go against the grain here. That younger half of the youth you are referring to here are also the same people the article is referring to that get all their news from social media, aka mainly from Instagram and TikTok and distrust MSM. And I think it would be correct to say that those social media sites did more to shape their views than reflect it, considerng how statistically speaking the majority of people had no opinions on such a complex topic before 10/7.
This very much would be a prime realization of the "social debt" the author is talking about, the mass polarization and instability caused by the overreliance on such networks, and the divestment can be argued to be an direct attempt to restablize things onto a common ground. In many ways it's already quite a liberal approach by divestment rather than a straight ban.
For me personally, I've unfortunately turned to the opinion that the "accuracy" of what consumes ultimately is going to be defined by the individual, not the source. I'm reminded of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, in that yes, of course these networks can influence one's views, but it's not deterministic. If one seeks the truth, one can easily just read from other sources freely availiable on the internet.
The problem here is that most people, including many in this thread and in HN I'd argue and perhaps myself, are not interested in the truth. The problem isn't that people are using TikTok or Instagram, the problem is that they are ONLY using TikTok or Instagram. Nobody reads actual articles instead of headlines. And that's because for most people, including many in this thread and HN and myself, we're here just to consume for entertainment, or to confirm our own priors. Why would we question our own beliefs? It's hard work, and there no real consequences if we get it wrong. We can retreat into our social circles and be told it's okay for it. Face it, the majority of people ARE easily manipulable, most in this thread included. People are only going to seek the truth if their job depends on it, and that is only going to include a narrow slice of domain knowledge. Outside of that, everything really is just noise.
There’s just not enough time to understand the huge range of societal and political issues to a depth that can inform a well-reasoned and holistically defensible position. Those who try inevitably find less reach than those who specialize in distribution of their ideas (whether social media, talking heads on TV, or even opinion writers). Pervasive anti-intellectualism makes it even harder to really grapple with the broad and accelerating range of complex systemic issues that our current civilization has bestowed upon us. I’m really interested in what kind of social changes could help counteract some of this and allow us to harness the good intent of our best and brightest.
This very much would be a prime realization of the "social debt" the author is talking about, the mass polarization and instability caused by the overreliance on such networks, and the divestment can be argued to be an direct attempt to restablize things onto a common ground. In many ways it's already quite a liberal approach by divestment rather than a straight ban.
For me personally, I've unfortunately turned to the opinion that the "accuracy" of what consumes ultimately is going to be defined by the individual, not the source. I'm reminded of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, in that yes, of course these networks can influence one's views, but it's not deterministic. If one seeks the truth, one can easily just read from other sources freely availiable on the internet.
The problem here is that most people, including many in this thread and in HN I'd argue and perhaps myself, are not interested in the truth. The problem isn't that people are using TikTok or Instagram, the problem is that they are ONLY using TikTok or Instagram. Nobody reads actual articles instead of headlines. And that's because for most people, including many in this thread and HN and myself, we're here just to consume for entertainment, or to confirm our own priors. Why would we question our own beliefs? It's hard work, and there no real consequences if we get it wrong. We can retreat into our social circles and be told it's okay for it. Face it, the majority of people ARE easily manipulable, most in this thread included. People are only going to seek the truth if their job depends on it, and that is only going to include a narrow slice of domain knowledge. Outside of that, everything really is just noise.