I completely agree. But it's hard, since "politics" is broad and almost everything touches it in some way.

The main way I've tried to achieve this is by largely limiting what I read to:

1. Authenticated contributors, either people I know personally or hired by companies I trust (e.g. NYT).

2. Anonymous contributors with heavy moderation and filtration (e.g. Twitter, but with O(100) muted words and accounts. My feed is basically just art now and it's delightful).

Again, that's hard to do. I'm still on here for instance.

Interesting, so you've managed to create your own Internet bubble. Isn't this another example of confirmation bias?

I would think it would be better to just scroll past the content you are not interested in engaging in. It certainly will be better to know of something happening, even if in brief terms, than to be completely in the dark of it.

I don't think there are any easy answers.

If you don't filter, best case scenario your SNR is going to be too low. There's also a pretty good chance that you will end up with a GIGO situation because all you hear about is whatever cable news, Cambridge Analytica, and Amazon's twitter astroturfing squad are pushing today.

If you do filter, you're correct that it opens the door to all kinds of biases.

Totally. I'm deliberate and happy with the the bubble I've created. It's actually quite diverse in terms of authenticated sources-- the anonymous content is what's heavily filtered.

> It certainly will be better to know of something happening, even if in brief terms, than to be completely in the dark of it.

I don't think so. It's impossible to hear about everything and I feel whatever is newsworthy enough to hit the sources I read is important enough for me.