Archive for February 2017
It’s important to mention that I consider myself an info-mole. I’m addicted to thinking, discovering new data, researches, speculations and connotations. I continuously consume information from social media, news outlets and periodicals (much less from books, as they are often outdated). This lasts since I remember myself, and will hopefully last until I stop doing.
At some point I realised that information is an independent value, not necessarily related to data, knowledge, opinion, etc. I started viewing information as fundamentally indivisible from its production and consumption. Information for me became a captured or projected process of transferring data or knowledge from agent to current or prospective observer. Information is generated at source to be absorbed at target. So each quantum of information for me has a purpose.
That may sound a bit too abstract, but I apply this approach both as motivational explanation of social communication, and as a way of interpretation of environmental phenomena in general. And the purposes are just two: distributing physical energy and maintaining entanglements (while the second can be also reduced to the first one deferred).
So, in the context of personal information consumption I empirically stabilised the analytic approach to each piece of information that becomes available for me:
- Who is sharing the information?
- The chaining source agents of each piece can be multiple;
- Why is it shared by the agents?
- Explicit, implicit or unintended purposes;
- How does it affect the observers?
- Myself or other actual or potential consumers.
Let’s take a random article from Google News for analysis… WTF Google News? What is this pathetic junk? Your information is completely useless. News are generated by a graph incompetent bloggers. They post their essays for traffic conversion and social coverage. As cheapest emotions to touch are fear and disgust, the major result of these articles is bad mood of the reader. They don’t offer an objective view on the topic or present a balanced spectrum of opinions. They amplify problems and don’t suggest solutions.
I don’t appreciate this kind of information. I’m used to and wish to continue to consume information for curiosity. Or information that helps me make decisions. Or information that confidently exposes risks. News outlets fail with it miserably (luckily there are other resources online, that are better, but sometimes I tend to think the set is shrinking).
So I’m stating my wish, hope, request and demand to you, o Internet of People: Do good. You can compile the same information in a way that can suggest a constructive action. And by that I mean, that if hypothetically all followed your advice, the world would at a step become a nicer place for all.
- I demand writers to learn that spreading evil and useless information hits them back and focus on kind and constructive.
- I request readers to learn that accepting information without evaluating the author, the purpose and the effect makes them vulnerable to evil and useless information that weakens them.
- I hope both sides will realise they are of comparable scope – for reader the author is a neighbour and not an abstract trumpet, and for author the reader is a neighbour and not an abstract “crowd”.
- I wish attention and advertence of all to spring and blossom.
So I could quietly continue to do my info-digging without wasting time and effort on filtering tons of annoying depressing bullshit.
Thank you in advance.