A Stanford researcher was annoyed that we live in the 21st century, and advocated we return to previous centuries’ information-flow check valves of wise old men. No doubt the publishers of and subscribers to the Journal of the American Medical Association applauded the same old tired prescription.
Ten instances of the word “should” in the final two paragraphs provided ample evidence of the paper’s intent. Mirroring the current political climate, accusations made of others were items the accusers were guilty of themselves, such as:
“When these scientists act as investigators in the hundreds of observational studies that they publish, or as editors and peer reviewers in evaluating submissions from others, would they tolerate publishing analyses and funding proposals that might contradict their belief system?”
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2753533 “Neglecting Major Health Problems and Broadcasting Minor, Uncertain Issues in Lifestyle Science”
One of the paper’s references included an informative graphic:
“A histogram of the total number of rumor cascades in our data across the seven most frequent topical categories.”
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146 “The spread of true and false news online”
I’ll borrow from the curation of another Stanford paper Online dating cuts out the middlemen in conclusion:
“Are there examples where it wouldn’t potentially improve a person’s life to choose their information sources? Friends, family, and other social groups – and religious, educational, and other institutions – have had their middlemen/guarantor time, and have been found lacking.
Make your own choices for your one precious life.”