The problem, of course, is that most people aren't taught how to use evidence to determine the most likely truth. Given conflicting sources, many people have NO EFFING IDEA how to work out which ones are credible and which ones are blatantly lying (and everything in between). 1/

No idea, that is, other than authoritarian "defend unto death the beliefs of your in-group, and everyone else is lying" methodology.

...which was already bad enough, thanks -- but at least the *sources* of bad information were limited in quantity.

2/

Now, there's effectively no limit on the number of potential sources. Platforms for mass propaganda are freely available, and there's no hierarchy to deplatform sources that aren't acting in an organization's best interests. The "marketplace of ideas" is unregulated...

3/

...and in any unregulated marketplace, fairness and honesty tend not to be adaptive traits. There's no money in publishing the truth, especially when most of your audience can't tell if you're lying... and there's definitely profit in that.

Honesty becomes a loss-leader.
4/

I started this thread thinking "maybe people would be interested in learning methodologies for discerning truth from grift", but... although there is definitely some interest in that, it's likely marginal; it will only effect positive change over the very long term.
5/