Showing sources is not a bad thing. The harm is not questioning sources. A lot of people rely on poor sources. Whatever what the first result in Google historically, and now LLM summaries.

maybe my viewpoint is weird but i think this distorted human interactions on multiple domains.

of course we all wanted to communicate faithful information, but now any discussion turns into a religious difference, and the escape is of course "who has the truest source". people don't necessarily understand the content, they just defer the validity to an official third party, so basically we're back to zero.. but we're all debating everything now.

and it makes me think that locally, we chatting, was never meant to exchange rigorous information, but mostly to share opinions lightly, more emotional than rigorous and scientific

Not so long ago, the "truth" was mainly given by the priest or the mayor.

And now it's given by the mainstream media, which is mostly owned by a few very rich people and pushes the same type of propaganda as before (but now globally).

There was a point where I would agree with that, but we seem to be moving past that. The "truth" seems to be coming more from social media influencers than mainstream media now.

It's kind of a shit show.

> It's kind of a shit show.

Where we all have a different definition of "mainstream media".

For priest or the mayor read "trusted or official sources" nowadays. I believe that is the current euphemism.

We still live in that fuzzy reality. Not much has changed.

It doesnt really matter if the whole world has access to the same information if the whole world trusts completely different sources.

For better or worse we trust those sources exclusively because of tribal affinity.

I doubt many people in the US could be persuaded to trust Global Times over the New York Times even if you could prove it had a better prediction track record. Wrong tribe.