> We need critics who devote their lives to browsing through the pile and telling us what is worth our time and what isn't.
No thanks. The last time this happened we ended up with opinionated articles, hidden promotions, and censorship in news, media, newspapers, etc.
A good example:
try searching for "fluoride residue in brain" on Google vs Yandex and see how they tell totally opposite stories.
Uh… no. What made me look into a subject that it often called a conspiracy theory (men’s rights) was the several levels of obvious bullshit that newspapers were delivering. Think about it: The only thing they had to do was to say lies that seem right, and they didn’t even succeed at that.
So no, it’s not the mediatization of the opposite point of view that gives it an audience, but the sheer lack of truthfulness of the dominating class.
Mens rights arent a conspiracy theory, but are often used as dull propaganda in the same way.
It sucks because theres a group local to me that does free information sessions and bbq meet ups in front of the local family court house.
But online MRA's have given them such a bad name with terrible behaviour.
And now that no one trusts any kind of expert, we've ended up with millions of various conspiracy peddlers believed by billions too uneducated to even begin to parse fact from fiction. Sort of like taking the centralized religion/opinion/censorship problem and smashing it into tiny shards that get on everything.
At least when there were 2, 3, or 10 curated sides to a story, with sources and expertise to draw on, a somewhat literate person could draw some conclusions on which parts of each were valid.