>My observation is that if you get information from only one source (or only sources of one ideology), and they repeat it over, and over, and over, you'll end up believing it - no matter how intelligent you are. Blind repetition is all that is needed. I've interacted with very smart people who mostly watch Fox News and will believe stuff that a simple Google search would debunk. Likewise for many liberals who have "interesting" beliefs regarding diet or health.
The problem is getting information from only one source.
>Finally, if you really believe government shouldn't be involved, then remove all laws that provide special protections to the press (if any exist). Examples are shield laws almost every state has. If you accept for special government privileges for journalists, you shouldn't claim no government intervention.
I never said I agreed with such laws. With shield laws they can say whatever they want quoting "sources".
Anonymous speech is the cornerstone of free society - without it a mafia state prevails all too easily.
Not to mention its role in helping to move on from shared delusions and letting problems be transparent. There is a reason why the Dust Bowl wasn't like the Great Leap Forward despite both being grand agricultural fuck ups prompted by bad leadership. The one wasn't addressed with "this is fine" and started to receive corrections instead of doubling down for sake of face.
Same reason as why it is acceptable as a limitation of free speech to prevent proof of ballot choice - while people can and should advocate what they believe it being open leads to all sorts of nasty attacks like vote buying and extortion.
How do you expect to stand against bad actors without anonymous speech then? Using that as a rationale against anonymous speech rings of opening the abbot to Viking raiders for fear that someone might be pilfering coppers from the offering plate.
The problem is getting information from only one source.
>Finally, if you really believe government shouldn't be involved, then remove all laws that provide special protections to the press (if any exist). Examples are shield laws almost every state has. If you accept for special government privileges for journalists, you shouldn't claim no government intervention.
I never said I agreed with such laws. With shield laws they can say whatever they want quoting "sources".