I found this really interesting! But it really bothers me that she equivocates content and media: they are not the same thing, and to not recognise this is a major flaw. Consider that media is subject to laws and follows protocols and procedures to verify information and present it correctly, while content encompasses everything from opinion led work to marketing, and has no responsibility to anything but its creator and an algorithm. These are not the same things.
I would agree with that — though I think the lines are becoming increasingly blurry to the average person online. Trust in traditional news sources is at an all-time low, which is scary — and I do see it as a real risk that there are creators sharing information online who don't have journalistic, fact-checking rigour.
There are, however, creators who do share quality content and do endeavour to fact-check and reference scientific research where necessary. There are also online communities sharing helpful information that one may not be able to find on official websites online. For example, a friend of mine with endometriosis often consults Facebook groups to speak to other women about symptoms and find out info in English on where to get good care from doctors in Berlin.
I think this is where Jena's point comes in: if institutions were more present online and were sharing helpful content in the various formats people are accustomed to, there'd be more quality information online, and more people could be reached.
Some interesting points, although the starting position feels overly simplified.
Trust, authority, expertise have different meanings and mechanisms of measurement in the world of web/tech/wide-spread access to information. Bringing existing institutions online would only end in a simulacrum of the IRL, controlled by a handful of platforms, which can't moderate the vastness of human activity. Nor should they!
We, in the very broad sense, are still grappling with how to best create a mental model of the landscape around us and programs from a handful of biased platforms are distractions with minor long-term benefits. The consequences are still emerging.
Really enjoyed our conversation -- thank you Miriam!
I found this really interesting! But it really bothers me that she equivocates content and media: they are not the same thing, and to not recognise this is a major flaw. Consider that media is subject to laws and follows protocols and procedures to verify information and present it correctly, while content encompasses everything from opinion led work to marketing, and has no responsibility to anything but its creator and an algorithm. These are not the same things.
I would agree with that — though I think the lines are becoming increasingly blurry to the average person online. Trust in traditional news sources is at an all-time low, which is scary — and I do see it as a real risk that there are creators sharing information online who don't have journalistic, fact-checking rigour.
There are, however, creators who do share quality content and do endeavour to fact-check and reference scientific research where necessary. There are also online communities sharing helpful information that one may not be able to find on official websites online. For example, a friend of mine with endometriosis often consults Facebook groups to speak to other women about symptoms and find out info in English on where to get good care from doctors in Berlin.
I think this is where Jena's point comes in: if institutions were more present online and were sharing helpful content in the various formats people are accustomed to, there'd be more quality information online, and more people could be reached.
Some interesting points, although the starting position feels overly simplified.
Trust, authority, expertise have different meanings and mechanisms of measurement in the world of web/tech/wide-spread access to information. Bringing existing institutions online would only end in a simulacrum of the IRL, controlled by a handful of platforms, which can't moderate the vastness of human activity. Nor should they!
We, in the very broad sense, are still grappling with how to best create a mental model of the landscape around us and programs from a handful of biased platforms are distractions with minor long-term benefits. The consequences are still emerging.
One of my favourite researches on this topic, P. Sheldrake, summed this up in a question of identity, which always goes both ways. One of their essays: https://generative-identity.org/human-identity-the-number-one-challenge-in-computer-science/