To be honest, everything we learn is cherry picked by someone.

You can either exert editorial control to push content that fits your rhetorical needs at the cost of engagement (because by definition you're not pushing the most engaging content) or you can push the content that is the most naturally engaging. You can't have both.

And boy do I have bad news about the places you would typically turn to be more informed about current events -- the news -- and how what you see is also designed to promote engagement.

Someone who acquires more factual knowledge via TikTok would be more informed than one who did not, all other things being equal, no?

Not necessarily. A carefully selected set of facts can tell a very inaccurate story.

They are still more informed though. One important thing they could be more informed about for example is how slippery and illusory colloquial English language is, and the effects that has on the "reality" one experiences.

No, they are misinformed and may believe entirely incorrect things as a result.

This is a good example as I’m sure many holocaust deniers see themselves as more informed than non-holocaust deniers

>> They are still more informed though.

> No, they are misinformed and may believe entirely incorrect things as a result.

More informed does not necessarily protect one from being misinformed (your "no" implies your statement necessarily disagrees with mine - it does not).

> An example of this is Holocaust denial. A carefully selected set of facts in isolation can make someone believe the Holocaust didn't happen; this does not make "the Holocaust never happened" an informed belief.

Finding a positive example of something is easy, now try demonstrating there are literally zero counter examples, which is the claim you are making.

Also to consider:

- Is "informed" both a binary and non-decomposable?

- Might you be expressing your opinion on the matter, but representing (and perhaps perceiving) that opinion as a fact?

- "One important thing they could be more informed about for example is how slippery and illusory colloquial English language is, and the effects that has on the "reality" one experiences."

No.

Consider this simple example of cherry picking data (with made up numbers):

10 000 people every year suffer severe side-effects from vaccines.

If that's all you know it's logical to conclude that vaccines are dangerous.

But what they dont tell you is that vaccines are distributed to hundreds of millions and save the life of millions.

You need the full picture to be more informed.

Coming across the "10k severe side effects" data point should trigger the critical thinking in one to find out the total amount of vaccines in order to form an opinion. I would say it is still better to learn that fact than not.

You're expecting too much from a generation that grown up being bombarbed by narratives and distractions. Most don't have critical thinking and the required attention span in the first place.

That's what should be fixed then. Teach critical thinking and then you don't have to implement regressive policies like limiting or banning $perceived_bad_thing.

Nobody in a position of power is interested in teaching that to the masses. We are lucky if we can teach our own kids to think on their own.

If it only was a single data point, sure.

But my example was too simple just to make a point. In the real world you'd be bombarded with hundreds of facts like this, aimed at carefully crafting a certain narrative. Of course mixed with half-truths and lies.

It's not easy to overcome this with critical thinking, and even experts in the field fall into this trap. Expecting someone with no knowledge to be able to is just not realistic.

No information is better than bad information IMHO.

Is factual knowledge bad, necessarily? Simplistically, it can certainly be bad sometimes/often, but is there ever a time it necessarily isn't also due to to other poorly calibrated variables that have been overlooked, like educational and cultural norms?