This feels like a major takeaway for the article. We can all hypothesize and discuss as much as we want, but who of us has access to whats really going on? We only know what these platforms disclose, or what is leaked, which certainly is just the tip of the iceberg. It’s hard to collectively fix a problem that impacts us all when the cause is kept secret.

It is insulting to us all for him to say this.

Gosh, this is a great sentence. So succinct, I had not thought of it so plainly before. Political dialogue is collected, monetized, sold. It is made reductive for the sake of polarization and sensationalism, because historically, since the advent of the printing press. That is what sells. Where can we have meaningful conversation that is not funded by advertisers?

This is the key phrase to me. As important as it is to spot misinformation, it is important to spot information that it is simply unskillful to consume. TikTok or any short-form video feed seems like the perfect example. While the content may not be disinformation or malinformation, it is unlikely anything that will provoke meaningful/healthy thought or action in consequence.

If I could summarize the article in one phrase, it might be this. I believe this is the most critical question researchers could ask the different generations of consumers. “Do you feel a sense of duty to be informed?” Additionally we might ask, “in acting on this information, do you feel your actions make a meaningful difference in the world?” There may be bias in the wording of the second question, but something to that effect could bring us closer to the cause behind generational differences.