>We have seen demonstrable evidence for over twenty years now that if you build a way to more easily inform yourself on reality, facts, historical accuracy, etc that people would rather use that system to justify their own preconceptions and biases than seek out truth that might influence their beliefs.

I'm fairly certain the problem is the systems are written to reward those behaviors. It's technically not hard to solve that, but modern social media companies have this baked into their business model.

(Yes, I have a scheme in mind that solves it, sorry not sharing :-)

You don't need social media to learn that climate change is a thing. Just read Wikipedia. Look at the citations. And yet, a sizable portion of the US public believes it's a hoax.

Actually the problem with climate change deniers is that they doubt the source and cannot reason about the issue themselves. This is actually one example of needing a system to help people reason. Just telling someone something will not convince someone unless they trust the authority of the person telling them OR if they can reach the conclusion themselves. Thanks for this comment, it actually made me further realize how important such systems are.

I'm not talking merely about platforms for discovering information, I'm talking about platforms for thinking. Have you ever seen https://www.bayesialab.com? I went to one of their workshops in NYC and they produced quite a convincing example of this.

The economy/society is not a zero sum game as you are suggesting. It's a cooperative game. In some local scenarios it is a zero sum game, but to look at the whole economy/society like that is misleading. But yes, if people are looking to destroy each other, then yes, technology will just facilitate that. It is in most people's best interest to cooperate though.

So you're saying even if we do have platforms for thinking that help people navigate complex issues, it wouldn't have any economic or political benefit?