<story><title>Silicon Valley’s Safe Space</title><url>https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/technology/slate-star-codex-rationalists.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>np-</author><text>My ultimate problem is that once this fact becomes apparent to people, many of them tend to go down the rabbit hole of getting what they perceive as the &amp;quot;real&amp;quot; news from blogs&amp;#x2F;forum posts&amp;#x2F;opinionated tweets&amp;#x2F;random guy with a youtube channel. As in, the eventual consequence to mass media having poor rigorous standards of reporting is that people will migrate to sources that have even poorer standards. TBH, I don&amp;#x27;t really know what the solution to the problem is.</text></item><item><author>karaterobot</author><text>In some real way, Gell-Mann amnesia sustains the entire news industry. We have to believe there is a central, reliable source of news somewhere out there, despite so much evidence to the contrary.</text></item><item><author>blhack</author><text>If you read this article and know the types of things that Scott writes, remember this experience and try to imagine how many other nytimes outrage articles are similarly full of lies.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>pas</author><text>The solution is History, as in the data&amp;#x2F;evidence-driven profession. It&amp;#x27;s perfectly well applicable to contemporary events too.&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia&amp;#x2F;wikinews with all its faults gets a lot closer than the NYT. Because it&amp;#x27;s not static, it&amp;#x27;s not maddening fluff and drivel (when every fucking &amp;quot;article&amp;quot; is a story, &amp;quot;Abigale stood in the doorway in a chilly afternoon, disoriented by the bad news that her application by the Local State Office of Nobody Ever Heard of Ever was denied ...&amp;quot; and seven paragraphs later we will finally find out some new nugget of information, maybe even at the end of every such amazing certified five-times-Pulitzer piece there will be some hard data &amp;quot;statistic&amp;quot;).&lt;p&gt;There&amp;#x27;s simply not enough demand for such an outlet with rigor, standards, etc. (Or maybe there is and it&amp;#x27;s a market niche, or it&amp;#x27;s an outright market failure that this need is not satisfied.)</text></comment>
<story><title>Silicon Valley’s Safe Space</title><url>https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/technology/slate-star-codex-rationalists.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>np-</author><text>My ultimate problem is that once this fact becomes apparent to people, many of them tend to go down the rabbit hole of getting what they perceive as the &amp;quot;real&amp;quot; news from blogs&amp;#x2F;forum posts&amp;#x2F;opinionated tweets&amp;#x2F;random guy with a youtube channel. As in, the eventual consequence to mass media having poor rigorous standards of reporting is that people will migrate to sources that have even poorer standards. TBH, I don&amp;#x27;t really know what the solution to the problem is.</text></item><item><author>karaterobot</author><text>In some real way, Gell-Mann amnesia sustains the entire news industry. We have to believe there is a central, reliable source of news somewhere out there, despite so much evidence to the contrary.</text></item><item><author>blhack</author><text>If you read this article and know the types of things that Scott writes, remember this experience and try to imagine how many other nytimes outrage articles are similarly full of lies.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>arduanika</author><text>Personally I think I&amp;#x27;ve arrived at a place where I&amp;#x27;m wary of Gell-Mann Amnesia both with the established sources, &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; with the conspiracy rabbit holes. I&amp;#x27;ve seen both NYT and &amp;quot;alt&amp;quot; news say things that are straight-up incorrect about facts that I know from my own experience, in my own domains of knowledge, so I&amp;#x27;m not going to trust either blindly. I&amp;#x27;m left trying to piece together from various sources of different slants, at different points on the established&amp;#x2F;fringe spectrum. This is harder than taking a side, but I want to believe it&amp;#x27;s worth it.&lt;p&gt;Btw, I&amp;#x27;m not trying to draw a simple equivalency here. &amp;quot;Thinking for yourself&amp;quot; isn&amp;#x27;t as easy as saying &amp;quot;both sides distort&amp;quot; and plotting a naive midpoint between extremes. You have to read everything critically.</text></comment>