> I realized that I couldn’t restrict my search for evidence to the familiar authoritative sources without ignoring a near-infinite number of new sources
This happens because the so-called "authoritative sources" have lost their trustworthiness, creating a vacuum that is filled by new sources, some good and some bad.
The problem is, people are bad at thinking for themselves, and basically outsource their beliefs to third parties. Are we worse at this than we used to be, or has it always been like this?
We need more primary sources of information, and less filters trying to persuade us, who often have unseen agendas and different motivations.
Gathering and evaluating information is hard work and can be a significant time sink. Most people have other things going on in their lives that they'd like to have time for.
Exactly. I was in a discussion thread where someone mentioned a book that was accusing some group of becoming apostate (in terms of the context of this particular community). Now most people in that community don't think the author of said book is an unbiased source of information - in fact the bias seems quite blatant. But people in the thread were saying "Have you read the book?!" and most people said "No, I've got better things to do" to which the reply was "Well, then you don't want the truth!"... and on and on. Who's got time to check out every crackpot source and determine it's veracity?
>I realized that I couldn’t restrict my search for evidence to the familiar authoritative sources without ignoring a near-infinite number of new sources
This was in the early 2000's when the CIA analyst said this, but with familiarity of a time when the majority of online sources had been trustworthy (if not completely authoritative), it was easier to navigate the pitfalls at the time.
It was still possible to judiciously exploit the new sources for deep research to a worthwhile degree for another reason because there was lots more info (but noisier by far) coming from all directions, but I wouldn't say they were exactly near-infinite.
Not compared to today.
Now I would say it's near-infinite.
Although AI may not have yet had the full effect that it could be capable of.
This happens because the so-called "authoritative sources" have lost their trustworthiness, creating a vacuum that is filled by new sources, some good and some bad.
The problem is, people are bad at thinking for themselves, and basically outsource their beliefs to third parties. Are we worse at this than we used to be, or has it always been like this?
We need more primary sources of information, and less filters trying to persuade us, who often have unseen agendas and different motivations.