Majority of US teens have lost trust in Big Tech

2025-01-306:17207370techcrunch.com

American teens have lost their faith in Big Tech, according to a new report from Common Sense Media, a nonprofit offering reviews and ratings for media

American teens have lost their faith in Big Tech, according to a new report from Common Sense Media, a nonprofit offering reviews and ratings for media and technology, which more recently includes AI products.

In the study released Wednesday, the organization surveyed over 1,000 teens on whether major technology companies like Google, Apple, Meta, TikTok, and Microsoft cared about their well-being and safety, made ethical decisions, protected their private data, and more. In all cases, a majority of teens reported low levels of trust in these tech companies. Nearly half of teens said they had little or no trust that the companies would make responsible decisions about how they use AI.

Distrust in Big Tech has been building in the U.S. for years, from the 2013 revelation of the government’s mass data collection, to the data scandal involving consulting firm Cambridge Analytica, to the 2021 Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen’s leaks indicating Meta was aware of its harms on society, to the multiple Congressional hearings where lawmakers grilled Big Tech CEOs over app safety, antitrust issues, and harmful algorithms.

This year, tech CEOs lined up to pledge allegiance to the Trump administration in the form of $1 million donations to the president’s inaugural fund, hoping to buy favor and avoid scrutiny and regulation of their businesses — no matter the cost to their users. (Even for those aligned with Trump, the tech leaders’ actions are seen as disingenuous, given how they’ve flip-flopped after previously criticizing Trump in his earlier term.)

While teens may or may not track these tech news headlines as closely as their adult counterparts, this overall shift in sentiment is affecting them, too.

Common Sense says that 64% of surveyed U.S. teens don’t trust Big Tech companies to care about their mental health and well-being and 62% don’t think the companies will protect their safety if it hurts profits.

Over half of surveyed U.S. teens (53%) also don’t think major tech companies make ethical and responsible design decisions (think: the growing use of dark patterns in user interface design meant to trick, confuse, and deceive.

A further 52% don’t think that Big Tech will keep their personal information safe and 51% don’t think the companies are fair and inclusive when considering the needs of different users.

Not surprisingly, the mistrust in tech is influencing teens’ opinions around AI, too, as 47% of those surveyed don’t believe these companies will make responsible decisions over their use of AI.

The new study builds on Common Sense’s prior research about the adoption of generative AI among teens and also focuses on how GenAI is impacting the larger media landscape.

For instance, it found that 41% of surveyed teens reported being misled by fake images online, 35% were misled by fake online content in general, and over a quarter (28%) wondered if they were talking to a bot or a human. A third of teens also said that GenAI would make it even harder to trust the accuracy of online information. That figure rises to 40% if the teens had previously been duped by fake or misleading content.

Overall, the report points to a lack of uncertainty over online content, though that’s hardly a new problem for the web.

Still, it seems that AI isn’t helping the matter despite AI chatbots’ authoritative answers. Some 39% of surveyed teens noticed problems with AI’s output when using it for schoolwork help. Plus, a majority of surveyed U.S. teens (74%) said privacy safeguards and transparency are needed to manage AI, 74% said AI companies should discourage people from sharing personal information on their platform, and 73% of teens said AI images and other content should be labeled and watermarked.

When weighing in on the business models of AI, 61% of teens felt that content creators should be compensated when their data is used by AI systems.

As a result of teens’ lack of trust and the fast pace of AI development, 35% of teens think GenAI will make it harder to trust online information — though that number could change in time.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By mattgreenrocks 2025-01-3014:483 reply

    I remember graduating in 2004 and ingesting the message from the [current] BigTech companies that, "this time it'll be different!" and "we aren't like those other companies!" I ate it up, of course. I didn't have the experience to see that the promises were hollow by the nature of the arrangement.

    Fully expect a new crop of companies to make the same pitch, and people to fall for it again.

    • By indoordin0saur 2025-01-3014:552 reply

      To be fair, it was different for a while. Those companies started out with visionary product designers and engineers who cared about creating a great product that genuinely helps the customers. But once the product is out in the market the culture inevitably changes over to one of patent trolling lawyers, stock buyback schemes, layoffs, outsourcing, dishonest marketing, squeezing the customers with difficult-to-cancel subscription models, etc.

      • By mostlysimilar 2025-01-3017:111 reply

        It is incumbent upon those of us who want better to build companies that do not do this. You don't need to be a unicorn startup, you can be a small company that employs a small handful of like-minded individuals who want to build good products for people, who reject the ravenous growth machine that plagues tech today.

        • By kraussvonespy 2025-01-3017:331 reply

          Yes but only if you stay a private company. Once you issue stock, those like-minded individuals are going to be pressured to enshitify to maximize shareholder value. Or pressure the like minded to get acquired by a big pile of enshitification like Broadcom.

          • By boppo1 2025-02-0111:30

            What actually legally establishes shareholder primacy? Ford vs Dodge?

      • By trod1234 2025-02-010:20

        What people don't seem to realize is that the business cycle today mirrors your average ponzi scheme.

        The company has a product, gets loans based on said product. The terms are front-loaded according to your standard S-adoption curve which under some representations mirrors a Ponzi curve.

        The debt taken must eventually be repaid. The bankers know this which is why they loan to these entities to begin with, and I'm sure they get kickbacks when the debt defaults as it almost always does from market manipulation. Then someone comes in buys everything up for pennies on the dollar to enhance their monopoly.

        Non-reserve debt issuance is money printing. The business either fails later when it should have failed overnight, or it becomes or gets acquired by a silent state actor that can be coerced.

        This is the ugly reality. Bankers get rich off the usury, and bailouts, the market shrinks and dies. Eventually products vanish, and once you realize the game as an actual producer you stop playing into their hands.

        When the entire environment is disadvantaged from the get-go, you stop participating, you withhold your intellect, and strike. Keeping the fruits of your mind for yourself, and others of like mind.

        You are not imposing destruction by doing this, you are getting out of the way, because eventually the bill always comes due, and parasites kill their hosts and then die themselves.

    • By fullshark 2025-01-3015:55

      Yep, we want to be seduced. The completely hollow moral core at the center of global capitalism is an unpleasant reality we want to avoid while we give hours of our life to our employer.

    • By burgerrito 2025-01-3015:192 reply

      "Don't be evil"

      • By ksec 2025-01-3018:10

        If invading on privacy was evil they have been doing it for as long as they have been saying it. Even before the start of Android vs iPhone. There were bits and pieces around it but MSM never wanted to go and report it, at least not at the scale of what they are today.

        Ultimately the facts and evidence are all there at least since 2005. We just all turned a blind eye to it.

        Just writing this I cant believe it has been 20 years. I still remember the day when rumours started Google is doing their own browser and worried Firefox may not be funded by them anymore.

        It took the world another 15 years before they were cynical enough to admit something is wrong.

      • By mattgreenrocks 2025-01-3016:181 reply

        It is incredible how much unearned good will this generated over its lifespan.

        Nowadays you could not get away with it. But once the meta shifts again there may be another timespan in which it is possible to run with it.

        • By riehwvfbk 2025-01-3016:28

          Couldn't get away with it? It's a story as old as time. A brave knight defeats the evil dragon only to become a dragon himself.

          Google or Meta couldn't pick up this line and start using it, but there's no reason that a startup with charismatic leadership couldn't fool some younguns.

  • By roenxi 2025-01-306:5114 reply

    Between this for new media channels and the breakdown of trust in old media channels there is a lot of reason to be hopeful about the future of the US. One of the big problems of the past was the insane level of trust in institutions that were at best credulous and more realistically just lying continuously and brazenly. It is a big win for the public discourse if people start applying cynicism where warranted.

    In many ways this is the real transformation change that the internet posited. Manufactured consensuses aren't holding so easily and people are being forced to acknowledge the sausage factory behind them.

    • By heavyset_go 2025-01-307:494 reply

      > Between this for new media channels and the breakdown of trust in old media channels there is a lot of reason to be hopeful about the future of the US. One of the big problems of the past was the insane level of trust in institutions that were at best credulous and more realistically just lying continuously and brazenly. It is a big win for the public discourse if people start applying cynicism where warranted.

      Instead, people are outsourcing their thinking to people like Joe Rogan and political YouTubers who exploit that cynicism for sponsorships, ad revenue and their own product lines.

      Say what you will about corporate media, and I'm also a big critic of it and even PBS, but at least something like PBS isn't pure brain rot and can be informative. I highly doubt Mr. Rogers or the News Hour radicalized anyone.

      These days terrorists are literally putting internet memes in their manifestos, along with shout-outs to their favorite YouTubers and internet pundits.

      > In many ways this is the real transformation change that the internet posited

      The "real change" was the Arab Spring era and powers all over the world quickly learned to not let that happen in their own backyards.

      We are currently experiencing a duality between domestic powers doing their best to stifle or direct change for their benefit, and external powers doing their best to generate unrest elsewhere to their benefit. The internet as it exists enables both to extents the world has never seen before.

      > Manufactured consensuses aren't holding so easily and people are being forced to acknowledge the sausage factory behind them.

      Manufactured consent has modernized, it's happening right now all over the internet. Tech has become the modern Skinner box for owners to manipulate users, and social media has absolutely warped the minds of at least one generation in favor of their owners, too.

      I wish I had your optimism, and I did like ~20 years ago, but man, the internet is pure poison for the unprepared mind. And I think we're all varying levels of unprepared for the highly optimized digital manipulation on the internet.

      • By rightbyte 2025-01-309:551 reply

        Algorithmic feeds are pure poison for the mind.

        But what might be even worse is headline reading. Like you don't read articles like you use to. People read the headlines which are rage bait and click bait. Realtime rage on "developing stories" than nothing when the boring conclusion is known weeks later. People are going insane.

        The death of the boring news paper is about as a big problem as Instagram. Modern newspapers just plainly sucks and are mostly rehashes of agency news anyways.

        I think we need to figuratively pull the plug on the internet. Like make it some sort of loser thing to be hooked on social media and light minded news.

        • By UniverseHacker 2025-01-3014:20

          There’s nothing to read in the articles anymore- they just rehash the title point over and over interspersed with unrelated clip art.

      • By rayiner 2025-01-3015:552 reply

        > Instead, people are outsourcing their thinking to people like Joe Rogan and political YouTubers who exploit that cynicism for sponsorships, ad revenue and their own product lines.

        Joe Rogan didn't lie us into a disastrous $6 trillion war that destabilized the middle east, created all sorts of knock-on consequences such as mass immigration into Europe from the Middle East that we're still living with two decades later. Joe Rogan didn't spend decades cheerleading immigration, outsourcing, and globalization policies most Americans never wanted (e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/electi...).

        Joe Rogan is popular because people can tell that his gut instincts and general world view are consistent with their own, which makes them trust his takes. If your alternative to that is people who believe in their hearts that the U.S. should bring democracy and human rights to the world, or take on millions of immigrants, you'll never get peoples' trust, just as you probably wouldn't trust someone who thinks the rapture is coming soon.

        • By lotsofpulp 2025-01-3017:131 reply

          > didn't spend decades cheerleading immigration, outsourcing, and globalization policies most Americans never wanted (e.g.

          Most Americans do want their cheap toys and gas, and if you try to take them away, you’re not going to get voted out.

          Don’t listen to what people say, listen to what they do.

          If Americans didn’t want outsourcing and immigrants, they would have kept buying made in America goods and wouldn’t bitch about higher grocery / restaurant prices.

          However, Americans (like any other group) never wanted to move down the relative socioeconomic rankings, especially relative to other Americans. So when they do, they start wanting to blame others for their lack of competitiveness with the other few billion people in the world.

          • By s1artibartfast 2025-01-3018:013 reply

            I genuinely think immigration is a law and order issue for many voters, and this is why you see a lot of support for controls from legal immigrants. People see right of refusal as a prerequisite to deciding where and how much immigration is desired.

            By analogy, I prioritize my right over who enters my home over other considerations. I would like to let contractors and cleaners in, but only on my terms.

            • By EasyMark 2025-01-311:26

              I'm of a similar bent. I can see expanding our -legal- immigration plans by quite a bit, especially for ag workers and other positions that Americans are largely unwilling to work for at anywhere near the current pay rates. I don't have a problem with greatly tightening down the border and "remain on the other side" while they have their asylum cases reviewed. I do take issue with dreamers and treating people who are already here like straight up criminals, especially if they are well acclimated and contributing, not causing trouble. I think the current regime is doing it with too heavy of a hand, but that ultimately the sheer scale of it will make them make better choices because of limited money and resources. We also don't need to expand the H1B visa program, it's about the right size currently. There are plenty American STEM workers to take on those roles.

            • By smcin 2025-02-064:16

              > immigration is a law and order issue for many voters

              Clearly they don't - where are the federal criminal indictments for companies which employ thousands of illegal immigrants? How many employers went to prison for that in 2024? 2020? In Apr 2018 - Mar 2019 (2nd/3rd year of Trump-1), only 11 were even indicted [0].

              Immigration is not a law and order issue for anyone other than low-information voters esp. in coming up to an election, when one party scapegoats the statistically small subset of (illegal) immigrants, the vast majority of whom don't commit serious crimes. Sanctuary should not apply to serious criminals. (There are certainly plenty of economic reasons to oppose illegal immigration, and to call on (both sides of) Congress to regularize their situation by adding new types of visa, because everyone acknowledges the US only functions on illegal labor; also they stabilize Social Security and never withdraw from it. Anthony Bourdain and the Texas construction industry both said as much.)

              [0]: "How Many Employers Have Been Prosecuted for Employing Illegals?" https://hrexecutive.com/how-many-employers-have-been-prosecu...

            • By lotsofpulp 2025-01-3018:031 reply

              The post I replied to mentioned immigration, not illegal immigration.

              • By s1artibartfast 2025-01-3018:151 reply

                Illegal immigration is a subset of immigration, and the focus of 90 plus percent of immigration policy and debate.

                • By lotsofpulp 2025-01-3018:501 reply

                  I disagree. Illegal immigration and immigration are two separate topics.

                  For example, one can be completely in favor of x amount of immigration, and be completely opposed to illegal immigration.

                  In the context of rayiner's post, the historic political cry of "immigrants bad" was not usually about illegal immigrants, it was about legal immigrants willing to work for less than people who grew up in America. There are plenty of records of anti Irish and anti Italian immigrant sentiment (or any other wave of ethnic migration that causes competition for the existing working class).

                  I would go so far as to say that current Republicans did skillfully weave the two political causes together in modern times to gain support of both those seeking law and order and those who dislike immigrants.

                  I think maybe that local level Democrats tarnished the national branding of Democrats by glorifying acceptance of illegal immigration, which might be popular in a select few cities or states, but not on the national stage (referring to sanctuary city policies).

                  • By s1artibartfast 2025-01-3019:071 reply

                    Maybe we will have to agree to disagree.

                    >For example, one can be completely in favor of x amount of immigration, and be completely opposed to illegal immigration.

                    This proves nothing, illegal immigration can still be a subset. I like food but dont like apples. This doesnt prove an apple isnt food.

                    Illegal immigration has been the focus of the immigration debate in the US for at least the last 50 years. Politicians dont debate the optimal number of green cards and H1B visas on podium.

                    • By lotsofpulp 2025-01-3019:421 reply

                      > This proves nothing, illegal immigration can still be a subset. I like food but dont like apples. This doesnt prove an apple isnt food.

                      This is not an analogous situation or context. It would be logically consistent to support a policy of importing food, except for apples, if you think apples are causing a problem that other foods are not.

                      We were not discussing the existence of immigrants themselves, which yes, by definition, illegal immigrants are a subset of immigrants since they are immigrants. But that is not interesting nor useful to converse about.

                      We were discussing the acceptance of immigrants (legal) versus the acceptance of illegal immigrants.

                      • By s1artibartfast 2025-01-3020:12

                        >We were discussing the acceptance of immigrants (legal) versus the acceptance of illegal immigrants.

                        Thats your take, not mine. I think the national conversation and rayiner's point is primarily about illegal immigration.

                        If you want to talk about why a big part of the US public feels betrayed, I think illegal immigration is both relevant and useful.

        • By watwut 2025-01-3021:271 reply

          > Joe Rogan is popular because people can tell that his gut instincts and general world view are consistent with their own, which makes them trust his takes.

          So, because he lies in a way that makes them feel good, more angry at people they want to be angry.

          • By rayiner 2025-01-3022:152 reply

            Joe Rogan often is wrong—because he’s not that smart and is prone to conspiratorial thinking—but he’s not lying in service of an ideology.

            • By AbstractH24 2025-01-313:181 reply

              How can you prove or disprove this?

              I have no idea what his true thinking is. Or even what hes like away from the public eye.

              • By hollerith 2025-01-3119:021 reply

                I'm pretty sure what we see is almost exactly what he's like in private. That kind of openness is hard to fake.

                Like Rayiner says, Rogan is not that smart, which combines with the confidence that comes from social and financial success and with the pressure to always be producing new content to cause him to make mistakes.

                • By AbstractH24 2025-02-0115:21

                  So the proof is you’re “pretty sure”?

                  I think that says it all

            • By ang_cire 2025-01-3023:13

              The profit motive is an ideology.

      • By jjmarr 2025-01-3014:491 reply

        https://youtu.be/Ho9M-q_kcn8

        > stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I'll sock you in the goddamn face, and you'll stay plastered

        --William F. Buckley Jr to Gore Vidal in 1968 on ABC television

        Buckley also hosted a show on PBS at the time.

      • By throwway120385 2025-01-3015:061 reply

        The internet makes you stupid.

    • By tomohelix 2025-01-307:099 reply

      A society where people can trust each other and each individual has enough integrity to not violate that trust is, in my opinion, the closest we can get to a thriving utopia.

      The US was close to that back in the days. Maybe it was just nostalgia speaking but I felt a few decades ago, people were so much more "refined" and had respect for each others and themselves.

      Then some people took advantage of that. And it devolved. Now we have a country where the presidential candidates insult each other live on TV with straight up lies and deception. And the people cheer on.

      So yes, indeed we are having a breakdown of trust and a new paradigm is shifting in. Just that I don't think it is a good one.

      • By rfrey 2025-01-3014:013 reply

        The US might be much closer to an authoritarian lurch than 20 or 30 years ago, but don't romanticize the recent past. My understanding is that polls around the time of the Kent State massacre... Where unarmed students were shot in the back by the military for the crime if protesting the Vietnam war... had almost 50% of the population supporting the military and saying the kids had it coming. Nixon had tons of support right until he resigned. There was never any level of social cohesion, the divisions just hadn't metastasized yet

        • By AbstractH24 2025-01-3014:551 reply

          It's a hard thing to accept that in the arch of history our current times aren't as unique as they seem.

          Even times like this occurring in a world that has the power to self-destruct isn't unique.

          What is unique is the speed at which information travels.

          • By codr7 2025-01-3016:15

            True, I don't believe the world has ever evolved this fast before.

        • By s1artibartfast 2025-01-3016:25

          I think the problem is seeking social cohesion to begin with, and seeing the US government as the tool that controls it. I think historically people had a much greater sense of distinct social spheres and political spheres.

        • By rightbyte 2025-01-3015:04

          Like a documented Tiananmen Square massacre ...

      • By fullshark 2025-01-3014:082 reply

        The trust was built on basking in the glory of WW2's victory and fear of nuclear annihilation. Maybe part of it too was the quality of life for 80+% of the generation was better than their parents in clear ways beyond "our TVs are better."

        The first two I'd like to avoid something analogous for a new order based on trust, but maybe the last one we can bring back if our leaders start to have a larger vision beyond focus on GDP, Stock Market returns, inflation, and unemployment rates.

        • By waspleg 2025-01-3014:13

          Top bracket taxed at 90%. Wealth disparity not at worse than 1920's levels as it is currently.

      • By gradientsrneat 2025-01-3016:19

        "The good old days" is a worn trope, but there may be a point.

        Women's employment and/or compensation in the United States peaked approximately two decades ago, and has since declined. Xi Jingping wasn't China's dictator yet, so China was a bit more free. Crimea hadn't been annexed yet, and Russians had much more access to the internet. The alt-right was still in its infancy. Brexit hadn't happened yet.

        Hence, when a British think tank claims freedom is falling across the world, I'm inclined to believe it. And levels of authoritarianism are inversely correlated with trust.

        On the flipside, a whole generation of people across many of the poorest parts of the world have experienced increases of standards of living due to globalization.

      • By EasyMark 2025-01-311:29

        I would say that you go back to the past two sets of prez debates and tell me that the "lie" ratio wasn't 10:1 or 20:1 between the two candidates. I would trust most HN people to revisit those and give a reasonable estimate. I think that's why I'm skeptical of "two-sides" most of the time.

      • By chneu 2025-02-018:00

        American society was only "refined" if you were part of the accepted classes. The US has whitewashed our history with rose tinted glasses. It's always been pretty bad, just the winners get to tell the story.

      • By codr7 2025-01-3016:14

        I see what you see.

        But I'm not convinced the result is a disaster.

        Evolution moves in a spiral, every round brings new insights.

      • By Hizonner 2025-01-3013:471 reply

        [flagged]

        • By ethbr1 2025-01-3013:563 reply

          Have you watched US presidential debates across the decades?

          (1992) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jWo88Lr0rzw&t=102s

          They've objectively gotten meaner and dumber with each cycle.

          • By plagiarist 2025-01-3014:101 reply

            You can also see that Congress has become this trash: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figures?id=10.1371...

            I think a large contribution to this behavior is the limited number of representatives. A terrible law and a huge disservice to the American people.

            • By ethbr1 2025-01-3015:42

              Also, you know, gerrymandering.

              The US needs a constitutional amendment that just picks one of the mathematically-based methods for evaluating voting districts and makes it mandatory.

          • By myvoiceismypass 2025-01-3017:17

            It definitely seemed to get very sides-like-sports-teams in the mid 90s just after this (when Newt was speaker) and just gotten progressively worse over time.

      • By taurknaut 2025-01-3013:571 reply

        Mostly I agree with you, but politicians should be insulted and ridiculed. I’ve had enough nauseating bipartisan back-slapping for one lifetime.

        • By codr7 2025-01-3016:16

          I would rather replace them with real humans.

    • By bee_rider 2025-01-3014:012 reply

      Too much cynicism just leads to paralysis. We do need some way to identify a way forward. Top-down centralized corporate media wasn’t it, but this algorithmic social media stuff isn’t great either. The former amplified voices that could pretend to be serious. This current thing amplifies voices that pretend to be stupid.

      It is a difficult problem.

      • By deltaburnt 2025-01-3014:47

        Centralized media at least gives you an entity to rally behind or against. If a news network is pushing propaganda it's easier to say "this place is a problem". With social media it's much more nebulous. Opinions on the source of the problem range from the big tech companies, the algorithms, the concept of social media as a whole, foreign influences, etc.

    • By azinman2 2025-01-307:097 reply

      It’s the opposite. Trust nothing, and we end up with pure chaos and the tragedy of the commons. Trust institutions (arguably had been the right choice), and society can move in lockstep forward together.

      • By godelski 2025-01-307:502 reply

          > It's the opposite. Trust nothing, and we end up with pure chaos and the tragedy of the commons.
        
        I think it is worse. We only need to look at popular authoritarian countries. Talk to the peoples that grew up there. Where they fear their neighbors. And that is the point, that is part of the control, you don't know who will "turn you in" for speaking up, so you don't. So you live in fear, you stay quiet for so long that the thoughts become even quiet to yourself.

        Trust is a necessary part of a society. Trust, but verify. But you still need trust. Without trust, the burdens are far too great. The world is too complex for one man to know everything. We have so much information and there is so much to know, one man is unlikely to even truly know one thing. Look at those with PhDs for an example. How narrow the research is. How narrow their expertise is. Do one yourself and you'll see that there are deep rabbitholes even in what appears to be a very simple topic.

        • By taurknaut 2025-01-3013:582 reply

          > Trust, but verify

          Tellingly, Reagan’s America is where I really notice cultural growth dying out and trust vanishing.

          • By potato3732842 2025-01-3015:041 reply

            I'd put the bit flip more around the time of Johnson/Nixon.

            • By jfengel 2025-01-3015:43

              There really was a bit flip at the time, though it was more of a return to form. It grew out of McCarthyism and the John Birch Society, which themselves were the phoenixes born of the ashes of paranoia about anarchists and communists from the early 20th century.

              And more controversially, I'd trace that to the same arguments as the Civil War and going back before the Revolution.

              We seem to have had periods of calm prosperity (post Civil War, post WW II) against a base of xenophobia and internal dissension that goes beyond just ordinary differences of opinion. The late 60s were the end of one of those periods, and it has been an exponential curve ever since. It's all inflection points for over half a century.

          • By grraaaaahhh 2025-01-3016:14

            I feel like its easy for "Trust, but verify" to degrade into "Verify, then trust". It's that initial step of distrust while verifying that starts to sour things.

        • By scarface_74 2025-01-3013:512 reply

          > Talk to the peoples that grew up there. Where they fear their neighbors

          Well I can talk to my parents who grew up in the Jim Crow south where they weren’t trusted to drink from the same water fountain go to the same school or get in the same pool.

          Or today you can look at any neighborhood’s NextDoor forum when they see a black person “suspiciously” walking in the neighborhood and entering a home with their key.

          https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/ving-rhames-officers-pulled-gu...

          Not to mention we just elected a President who ran on Haitians are eating pets and fear mongering of “other”.

          • By codr7 2025-01-3016:18

            Yep, the fear has to go, and it will.

          • By ethbr1 2025-01-3014:023 reply

            > Not to mention we just elected a President who ran on Haitians are eating pets and fear mongering of “other”.

            Prompted by unverified claims going viral on TikTok.

            Ceding mindshare to organizations whose only allegiance is to profit (and therefore eyeball time) is a loss, even compared to a world of less-than-perfect professional journalism.

            Journalism as a well-funded, independent, competitive market for news is the cornerstone of any democracy.

            Because without it, a populace can't be educated enough to vote in even their own best interests. (Exhibit A: Trump being elected on a manufactured illegal border crossing crisis)

            • By scarface_74 2025-01-3014:081 reply

              So you blame TikTok for a grown man and our now President getting his information from TikTok?

              The population doesn’t want to be “educated”. They knew exactly what they were getting. How do you “educate” people who in their heart believes that for instance saving Israel will bring on the second coming of Jesus during the rapture and if they condone the “gay lifestyle” they are going to burn for eternity and the nation will be set on fire?

              • By ethbr1 2025-01-3015:381 reply

                I blame the lack of alternatives to TikTok.

                The US no longer has a market of well-funded, professional sources of journalism. (Of the kind and scale that existed before ~2010)

                It has for-profit partisan outlets and social media, and those are insufficient substitutes to power a democracy.

                • By scarface_74 2025-01-3015:521 reply

                  Again, you blame one of the candidates - someone who we would hope surrounded himself by experts - for believing what he saw on TikTok?

                  There were plenty of alternatives to TikTok to get information that was more credible than a Chinese own media company.

                  • By ethbr1 2025-01-3017:02

                    I do not blame one of the candidates: I blame the failing US media landscape.

                    Look at NYT revenue [0], and it's the largest and most solvent of the big papers left. Newsrooms of everything after it (WSJ, WP, LAT) are even more gutted.

                    24/7 news channel "journalism" isn't a substitute, even when you can find it between the filler shows.

                    And it takes money to fund high quality journalism. Facebook and Google hijacked those funding streams, but then didn't use those profits to fund an actual replacement.

                    Instead, their platforms (and the ones that came after them) reward attention algorithm hacking and race-to-the-bottom in content quality.

                    And now, they've decided that even funding a fact checking function is inconvenient to their bottom line, so ditched that responsibility as soon as the political winds allowed them to.

                    [0] https://m.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NYT/new-york-times/r...

            • By mrguyorama 2025-01-3015:013 reply

              Conservatives haven't spent decades opting in to getting all their information from Fox News and AM radio hosts spewing hate because it's more accurate.

              People want to consume what agrees with their beliefs. As long as Americans continue to believe they are a magical place with magical people that you can't compare to anywhere else for advice, that the Civil war was fought over "state's rights", that we disliked the Nazis in the 1930s, that certain TYPES of people are intrinsically better than others, that we are a "christian" nation, we will never get better.

              Hell, even media made for people who don't actively hate LGBTQ types STILL treats the civil war like just some small kerfuffle and it's fine that two brothers on opposite sides of the war just needed to reconcile and love each other and that's totally fine even though one of them signed up to fight and die for a regime who's entire purpose was the continued enslavement of millions of black people for the crime of being born black.

              A significant portion of our country is outright TAUGHT IN SCHOOL that the civil war was a war of "Northern" (read: those goddamned coastal elites) aggression.

              The south fired the first shot for fucks sake.

              Why do you think those people would EVER choose to consume news that tells them: "Sorry, you've kind of been lied to for a long time and actually your ancestors were kind of bad people doing kind of bad stuff and also uh we genocided the indians and also the Nazis were pretty popular here and holy shit you should see the horrible stuff we did under the guise of 'science' when we discovered Eugenics let us claim black people were inherently inferior. Because their skull was the wrong shape. No I'm serious"

              How do you get someone to believe something they absolutely do not want to believe in and they don't even respect the primacy of material fact like "The southern states literally said they were fighting to maintain slavery IN THEIR SUCCESSION DOCUMENTS"? You can't force another human to respect and understand reality when they spend their entire existence and have built their entire worldview around "No, the people telling me my country did bad things in the past are actually the enemy"?

              • By ethbr1 2025-01-3015:491 reply

                I listed to a great discussion about the consolidation of conservative media (~1980-2010) on the radio.

                Murdoch aside, it generally happened because of profit chasing.

                It was easy and profitable to capture conservative audiences with centrally-programmed partisan content (read: Rush Limbaugh). Progressive-partisan political shows didn't do as well (read: Air America).

                Furthermore, stations couldn't mix partisanship without pissing off their listeners.

                So you ended up with stations choosing conservative programming because it was more profitable, and then becoming conservative-programming stations because that because their audience.

                With the net result of a huge disparity between the availability of conservative and progressive radio programming.

                ... compound that over a couple decades, and here we are.

                • By mrguyorama 2025-01-3021:48

                  You probably shouldn't "murdoch aside" conservative media control. He's a huge huge huge part of it himself, in the entire english speaking world!

                  Sure, profit chasing plays a part in it. A big reason why Youtube and Facebook push you down right-wing hate rabbitholes at the slightest hint that you might bite is simply that hate, oversimplification, and bullshit lies just drive engagement better than a 30 minute video essay on just how complicated this one tiny subsection of homelessness is and how much human labor and time it takes to work on it.

                  Humans like easy answer. Humans "engage" more (in ad-company parlance) with hate and things that cause anger. In a free meme market, the most shallow, most hateful content will always rise to the top.

                  But letting those incentives play out that way is a choice. Letting everything consolidate, an activity that is known to be detrimental to a free market, as long as they lower prices for a couple years before taking advantage of their monopoly is a very dumb choice. Reagan made plenty of dumb choices, but there were enough smart people in his cabinet to tell him exactly how this would play out. You don't live through the cold war and not know that owning the largest media narrative is power. And oh boy is it.

              • By scarface_74 2025-01-3015:10

                As much as I am aware of the perils of states rights, I’m almost in favor of a smaller federal government that lets each state fend for itself and let the Blue richer states have higher state taxes and lower federal taxes.

                Then for instance like minded states could form alliances. A true Federalist country.

                And yes I am well aware of my own hypocrisy only living in GA and FL my entire life and I know that the south would even be worse for people of my skin color if it weren’t for the civil rights legislation of the 60s, the official abolishing of segregation, etc

              • By datavirtue 2025-01-312:37

                Next time you're riding around, tune into local AM. Very dystopian.

            • By mistermann 2025-01-3014:212 reply

              >Journalism as a well-funded, independent, competitive market for news is the cornerstone of any democracy.

              A cornerstone. Another cornerstone is popular memes like this, our culture is composed of thousands of them, and they control how we think.

              • By ethbr1 2025-01-3015:401 reply

                The. Memes are only reflections of things people already know.

                When's the last time you saw a meme that taught you something or made you think about something more deeply?

                The vast majority are cotton candy facts.

                • By mistermann 2025-01-3020:321 reply

                  Have you something even remotely resembling a proof for this set of rather interesting claims of fact?

                  • By ethbr1 2025-01-310:371 reply

                    I was asking you, specifically. When was the last time?

                    • By mistermann 2025-01-3115:011 reply

                      Just now: "Perception is reality".

                      Now, can you transfer some of that impressive courage toward the task of answering the question I posed to you?

                      • By ethbr1 2025-02-013:001 reply

                        If you're unable to think of a time, any answer of mine would be moot.

                        • By mistermann 2025-02-0523:23

                          "Now" is a point in time.

                          I used a very unpopular meme though, so unpopular you may not be able to see it.

              • By AbstractH24 2025-01-313:20

                Journalism is, but I’m not sure for-profit journalism is.

                Any more that for-profit healthcare or housing is.

      • By surgical_fire 2025-01-309:312 reply

        Trust has to be earned and kept. You can't force trust.

        More important than mistrusting institutions is how you mistrust them. Understand their incentives, their patterns of behavior, their past actions, and hold them up against the theoretical ideals they set for themselves.

        Far too often I see people mistrusting institutions on lazy, poorly thought out grounds - "government bad, regulations bad, taxes bad, press bad" etc and so forth.

        • By ethbr1 2025-01-3014:08

          > and hold them up against the theoretical ideals they set for themselves.

          The perfect being the enemy of the good (and the path to inaction) is the curse of youth.

          Imperfect institutions can absolutely be better than alternatives. (Often: no thing)

          It's a hard lesson to learn, but a corollary to it being harder to build something than to tear it down.

          Yet some things need destroying or reshaping. The best square to the circle I've figured out is 'Don't break things you aren't willing to put ideas, time, and effort into rebuilding.'

      • By ARandomerDude 2025-01-307:162 reply

        > lockstep forward

        Those words are the problem. Why even have a democratic system if everything is done in “lockstep”? Moreover, “forward” is a highly opinionated term.

        Perhaps we can all, in lockstep, take a Great Leap Forward.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward

        • By anigbrowl 2025-01-307:201 reply

          Coordination and shared purpose are often good things actually. I'm so tired of people decrying any pursuit of consensus and collective action as tyranny, it's intellectually lazy and just leads to further atomization.

          • By ARandomerDude 2025-01-307:352 reply

            Voluntary coordination and shared purpose are great things.

            Otherwise, all the “forward” and “shared purpose” euphemisms do not change the fact that you have a tyrannical system, nor do the “intellectually lazy” ad hominems.

            • By ribadeo 2025-01-309:11

              Uninformed or misinformed people can make choices against their own interests, such is MAGA.

              Facts and physical primary reality matter more than ones opinion, but we paint the sun on the sky and order the tides to recede to please the king anyway.

              An informed populace can make informed decisions.

              Lying fake news not so much... Aka $50million for condoms in Gaza is a lie.

              Alternative facts will bite us all when the pedal hits the metal.

            • By stevenAthompson 2025-01-3015:45

              > Voluntary coordination and shared purpose are great things.

              To an extent. We can never have 100% agreement. For example, we would still have Polio if the anti-science squad hadn't been forced to go along with the plan.

              At the risk of sounding "elitist", fifty-four percent of Americans now read below the sixth grade level. We should not let their inability to function in the modern world keep our entire society functioning at or below the sixth grade level.

        • By OfficeChad 2025-01-308:14

          [dead]

      • By Galatians4_16 2025-01-307:191 reply

        You can move in lockstep with the mob if you like. I will scout ahead, and tell anyone openminded enough to listen, if there's a minefield or cliff coming up.

        • By bilbo0s 2025-01-3013:571 reply

          But the commenter is right about the first part of zero trust.

          Put another way, you aren't scouting ahead if no one is following you. You're homesteading. Which is a fine thing to do, but it won't get any significant bridges built. You, alone, won't be able to span the Mississippi with resources you find on your homestead.

          I think we have entered a post trust era.

          All that said, democracy is a team sport, so zero trust seems to be the population level consensus. So it's what should happen. Maybe it ends well? More likely it ends poorly. But either way, others will be able to learn from it and other human societies will benefit from the knowledge.

          • By Galatians4_16 2025-01-3016:201 reply

            The purpose of scouting is not to be followed, but to find obstacles and hazards, that may need to be circumnavigated, or overcome.

            In the course of their duties, a scout may need to travel across rougher terrain than the main group, as scouting often involves seeking higher ground to surveil the planned path from a different angle. The scout will have to retrace their steps many times to find paths suitable for the entire group, with or without equipment, or for the weakest members. The group may need to split up to outflank a threat, or to accomodate the mission parameters. It is the scout's duty to identify hazards and report them back to the group.

            • By bilbo0s 2025-01-3017:141 reply

              The fundamental assumption with scouting, however, is that there is a “group”. In a post trust society, there is no “group”. There is zero trust. There exists no one who trusts the scout, nor anyone who trusts his/her report.

              To have a “group”, you need some trust somewhere. “How to function, and what happens when there is no trust anywhere?”, is the question most of us are pondering.

              • By Galatians4_16 2025-01-3020:27

                >The group may need to split up to outflank a threat, or to accomodate the mission parameters.

                "This is getting out of hand, now there are two of them!" –Nute Gunray

                More than one group may be necessary to accomplish the mission, which may need to split into many missions, possibly even contradicting each other.

                Trust is earned, not demanded. Currently people are finding other trustworthy groups, and aligning to otther mission profiles to accomplish the greater mission. All you can do is try to re-earn their trust by giving accurate reports.

      • By peterbecich 2025-01-308:162 reply

        Agreed. For instance, 99% of people including myself cannot prove to themselves that vaccines are safe. The full explanation of vaccine safety down to the lowest level would be beyond my understanding. Trust in the authority figure is required.

        • By taurknaut 2025-01-3014:00

          Trust in that is required even for experts in the field. Replicating experiments is tricky, expensive, and sometimes risks the health of humans or kills a non-human test subject. (Though I really wouldn’t call this an appeal to “authority” so much as presumably “consensus of those in the field”)

        • By rightbyte 2025-01-3010:092 reply

          The "anti-vaxxer" movement thing is muddying the water alot concerning vaccines. I feel like valid concerns are downplayed nowadays which in it self will feed the sentiment.

          I really hope it doesn't leak the US more than it allready has. I prefer lifestyle subcultures centred around music taste.

          • By taurknaut 2025-01-3014:02

            > I prefer lifestyle subcultures centred around music taste.

            Class is going to dominate culture until the politics improves. I don’t really see any way around this.

          • By Aunche 2025-01-3015:082 reply

            There are indeed valid concerns about vaccinations, but I'm not convinced that vast majority of anti-vaxxers made any effort to represent that stance with an good faith. Hell, they politicized wearing a mask during a pandemic, which ordinarily would be considered the most harmless and least controversial thing to do during a pandemic.

            • By Izkata 2025-01-3115:29

              > which ordinarily would be considered the most harmless and least controversial thing to do during a pandemic.

              Except it wasn't, that was a brand new thing that came out of nowhere in 2020.

            • By rightbyte 2025-01-3021:07

              Ye I think a big problem might be that those who raises concerns about a specific vaccin might be tauted as "anti-vaxxers". Like, how crack pots and tin foil hats have been used to discredit proper regime critics.

              "Well, yes, Alex Jones also says PFASs are bad. Cooking in ... no I don't watch his show ... what? No, I have no prescriptions" etc. (I don't know if he said Telfon pots were bad before it was generally known to be true but lets pretend he did).

              The mask thing was a great messup. Going from "it does nothing" to "you must wear them" is not very pedagogical.

      • By ars 2025-01-307:42

        And when your lockstep forward = my lockstep backwards?

        Lockstep is never a good thing. And institutions are absolutely not trustworthy.

      • By jhanschoo 2025-01-3010:071 reply

        > One of the big problems of the past was the insane level of trust in institutions that were at best credulous and more realistically just lying continuously and brazenly.

        > It’s the opposite. Trust nothing, and we end up with pure chaos and the tragedy of the commons.

        The parent comment you are responding to is appropriately qualified, and you are throwing away that qualification. Trusting institutions that taking advantage of you to look out for your interests is worse than not trusting institutions at all (example: the institution of slavery, justified by racist pseudoscience, when you are not a protected class). Yes, the existence of institutions that can be trusted to look out for your interests (example: food safety regulators wrt. hygiene) is important, if that is what you are trying to say.

        • By RealityVoid 2025-01-3011:231 reply

          I would argue the paragraph you point out is appropriately qualified, but the comment itself is NOT appropriately qualified. The reason is OP feels hopeful about this lack of trust. And OP did not say what institutions he deems untrustwordy. Is it the "institution" of slavery? (I am always confused by calling this a instituion, it's not like it's an organization and a front desk) or CDC and FEMA?

          I agree, you should trust untrustwordy entities and trust trustwordy ones. It feels like a truism, but a lot of people revert to the behavior that misplaced trust is too costly and let's not trust at all because of this. Lack of trust comes with a hefty price itself. I personally feel that this leads to the unraveling of society.

          • By roenxi 2025-01-311:541 reply

            > And OP did not say what institutions he deems untrustwordy.

            In context I think it is fairly clear what OP meant - big tech and the traditional media sources like newspapers, corporate news and radio.

            Although if you hear "untrustworthy institutions" and the groups that sprig to mind are the CDC and FEMA, maybe someone should work on making them more trustworthy too.

            • By RealityVoid 2025-02-0122:25

              If you hear someone say they can't see the curvature of the earth and and think flat earth someone should make the earth rounder.

              You get what I'm hinting at, someone having some sort of belief does not ground that belief in reality.

    • By timacles 2025-01-3015:26

      What you see as hope in the future just looks like doom and gloom to me. Yeah people dont trust the institutions, now they trust Tiktok trends and whatever their favorite youtuber says. Except these trends and youtubers are still controlled by the big money media companies.

      Its not their fault, but the next generations simultaneously doesnt trust anyone and is also too gullible.

      Its as if we, as a world, are losing our grip on reality because of the internet. Flooded with constant streams of information, our brains cant make sense of it, so we default to going be how things feel. But we all know what feels right is usually wrong

    • By apeescape 2025-01-307:173 reply

      I'm not sure I share your optimism. If kids don't trust institutions, who do they trust? The answer is friends and celebrities (=influencers). Maybe they don't trust Big Tech companies per se, but you still need them to facilitate the content of whichever parties they find trustworthy. Decaying trust in institutions is just more ground for a total fantasyland where everybody can justify whatever they believe in. If the NYTs and gov't agencies of the world aren't deemed more reputable than the Andrew Tates of the world, we're on a path to a worse society.

      • By watwut 2025-01-307:481 reply

        Well, big tech companies are busy to push Andrew Tates of the world on kids accounts. If you open a new account for a young boy, algorithms will feed him Tate kind of philosophy in about a day.

        • By Aunche 2025-01-3015:26

          Characterizing Andre Tate as being pushed by big tech is like characterizing YouTube "pushing" people to use iPhones. When it came to people actually putting their thumbs on the scale, that went overwhelmingly against Andrew Tate. A lot of young men genuinely resonated with what Andrew Tate had to say, but admitting to that would be admitting that Andrew Tate was one of the few figures who was actually listening to young men, even if he was doing so soley for his own profit.

      • By Galatians4_16 2025-01-307:21

        Welcome to the shift show.

      • By Xen9 2025-01-307:531 reply

        You can't trust anyone. No even yourself, since whether you are insane or not may not be solvable, though you can aim to remember that you couldn't know & stress less.

        It's anarchism if things go well, though I do believe whoever is in power has preplanned for erosion of "trust." Youth culture is heavily shaped by forces from the dark that are not directly "big tech" despite using "big tech." I think Kropotkin said something like anarchism learns on its own outside socialist/communist commentary that applies, but this memory I wouldn't rely on!

        Stem is trendy & sexy in US in sort of leftist way, to use the world in the way Kaczynski meant. I think there's real interest, but it feels superficial, though getting regulators like "stem" when they probably couldn't separate physics from chemistry overall is great, for funding. I say this because STEM <=> Privacy cultural flow.

        Anyway, the cultural shift is to stem. It's also a shift to Hobbesian world. That makes sense. In a place with millions of people you cannot have humane humane truth that all share. You need to converge. So the suffering comes from the dead fish, that wouldn't find their groups that are not all natural worldview nihilism Hobbes.

        Why that's the end? Remark: Most humans cannot complete the Niestchean process of own value-choosing. You either do it when you are 1-20 or probably will never do it.

        On other hand, it's very scarying that we may actually see coercive, dogmatic Crowlian (or at least leaders don't believe in it) "religious" or "aesthetic" or "cultural" movements which then are all about power, because these do break the chance to have sort of system that learns by itself & may need force to break. That's the opposite of the now-known Japanese lock-up. Western governments probably should be focused on regulating groups so that everyone can do whatever they want as long as they don't influence others. Robotics makes this urgent, as they are great tool to violate & penetrate other humans fast.

        Economically it's the question of who is capable neurobiologically of being the most emotionless & greedy, and most useful transhumanist upgrades in next it-would-not-be-prudent-to-give-date will probably target that. This could be great if subsided, since if everyone is Lykken I Hobbesian, or most and the rest dies / suffers from lowel financial gains, then groups will not form as strongly.m around few humans, everyone going after their own good. This is actually good scenario, not grim.

        Tribalization & party systems aren't necessarily compatible though 2 parties doesn't cause necessarily party to mean "group" beause in large numbers there's going to be mixed up people, but does it make sense to group biggest groups into two meta-groups and have them rule?

        Dunbar & law of small numbers contradict, but the optimal system is sortition with entropy derived from formally-verifiable-on-your-own blockchain, such that if you are eligble and never before chosen, you may get a chance to be elected if you want, and perhaps anyone can submit their own bits to that system, and elected then get some training in logical reasoning, economics, finance, etc., and lobbying is banned with threat of pension loss after the term, meaning you'd have say 150 or some large number of random samples. This solves pretty much all problems of representative democracy, but cannot solve the fact representative democracy will probably NEVER switch to sortition.

        The elephant that's yet invisible in 2025 is what happens when big groups of non-objevtive truth like "person X should rule the world cults" collade with AI+qualia+neurobio research. Free will doesn't exist, but free agency does, and it's decreasingly less possible because someone can manipulate you via technology to work for their deterministically-evolved own interests. What happens when spirituality is just science, and science is just power, and power is just spirituality (uniqueness)? The world gets monotonous and boring, and societally we may not recover from the biggest manipulator-cults. Zuboff's book in 2/3 section goes along these lines less explicitly and with different thesis / goal or argumentation.

        To close the loop though, we are fortunate that Los Alamos & CIA & NSA exists, since they probably can produce this manipulative tech in advance, predict it's future economic role, and apply it for themselves. This isn't guaranteed, but one would hope for it, since US values & ideology are – indeed – not bad at all, for a dominant filler of the power vacuum.

    • By DinoDad13 2025-01-3013:431 reply

      Manufacturing consent is easier than ever. Look at how many Americans feel that immigrants are mostly violent criminals.

    • By indoordin0saur 2025-01-3015:06

      I wonder if we're moving into the full "regulatory capture" part of the cycle. Huge companies which no longer produce value need some way to shield themselves from smaller competitors with better value propositions.

    • By scarface_74 2025-01-3013:46

      Be hopeful for the future of US when most teens are still on social media and “new media” has more misinformation than old media?

    • By AbstractH24 2025-01-3014:49

      Hopeful that we will course correct, but not before an inflection point that's yet to be hit

      Have no idea what it will look like, but I think it'll be the 9/11 of another era.

    • By fullshark 2025-01-3014:05

      I share this sentiment, however I don't see anyone really building alternative channels. Just people creating content for big tech platforms, and ultimately chasing short term rewards (money) via short term engagement boosts. Sure we don't trust institutions so naively anymore, but sitting around talking about how everyone sucks gets us no where as a society unless we move forward.

      It's going to take people interested in more than just money, and the number of people willing to work for more than just money has seemingly never been smaller.

    • By voidhorse 2025-01-3014:18

      It's one part of the change required but a complete shift will not happen without economic structural changes.

      As long as the average person is beholden to a corporation to earn enough to provide for basic existential needs, nothing will change. The corporation retain full control and capital dominance, and they are still able to leverage that capital dominion for political gain via horrid mechanisms like lobbying.

      It doesn't really matter how much the people recognize the BS in the media when those holding the cards can still force policy makers to do their biding.

      This was the point behind theoretical marxism that people (thanks to those lying media outlets) tend to miss. You are not free until you control the production mechanism and the generators of value. Until that happens, you will always need to bow to those that actually hold and hoard value at the expense of everyone else and at the expense of establishing a truly free society.

    • By EasyMark 2025-01-311:11

      I would agree with you if 90% of the "new media" wasn't absolute clickbait trash. So many takes that are in a rush to get it out before their competition that it's usually unverified speculation that is at best a guess and worst an made-up-on-the spot lie. Other takes are just being controversial to be controversial or to serve special interests like "no matter what thou shalt be loyal to the democrat/MAGA literature, f the truth"

    • By pjc50 2025-01-3014:13

      What I've noticed is that people will identify some inaccuracy or failing in an institution, and then:

      (a) immediately throw out the bathwater without checking for a baby: discredit all the output of the institution

      (b) select an alternative source and then become completely credulous about it: discarding mainstream news for places like Infowars or Tiktok

      (c) everyone is now in their own differently wrong bubble happily consuming all sorts of propaganda and grifter nonsense

      The result is not an improvement, it's a low-trust society where you get things like an anti-vaxxer being appointed in charge of health.

  • By granzymes 2025-01-307:196 reply

    This report was published by Common Sense Media, an advocacy organization with a clear interest in pushing this message as part of their lobbying efforts. Maybe their intentions are good (they seem to back some good bills!), but it’s not a neutral source of information.

    If you look at polling data published as part of generic political surveys, you find that companies like Amazon and Meta are among the most trusted of U.S. institutions[0] (Amazon loses out only to the military).

    [0] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OgPzcB75uxXiFmTjUUb-ITIr7BF...

    • By distortionfield 2025-01-307:442 reply

      Trust is multi-faceted and although I trust Amazon to deliver me a toaster, i don’t for a second trust them to handle my audio or video in a manner I’m comfortable. This survey is talking about the latter kind of trust, not the former.

      • By bee_rider 2025-01-3014:03

        I trust them to deliver “a toaster” but, like, not necessarily the exact one I ordered, right? Either the one I ordered or a knock-off copycat that made it into the bin.

      • By rightbyte 2025-01-308:241 reply

        Ye. The surveyees (is that a word?) probably interpret the question very differently.

        I mean up until 5 years ago I trusted Microsoft and Google to handle my mail, since I though I was too unimportant and it would to much of an effort to read my mails for them. But I in no way trusted them.

        Concerning Amazon I guess most trust they will have their toaster. Like the same question about Walmart would be about food safety and quality.

        Not corporate culture or long term political influence.

        • By permo-w 2025-01-3013:51

          Is there a private company whose corporate culture or long term political influence could be trusted?

          I feel like this has not been possible in the West at least since Friedman

    • By timst4 2025-01-3013:581 reply

      And Facebook and X are not advocacy organizations vehemently pushing an agenda? The fact that there is an organization looking to speak for teenagers and their rights to privacy in the face of the aggressiveness of FAANG lobbying should be the best news you hear today. Organizations like CSM and EFF are the last points of light in an ocean of darkness.

      • By SpicyLemonZest 2025-01-3014:56

        I wouldn’t trust a poll published by Facebook or X about how popular they are either!

    • By btown 2025-01-307:49

      There is a marked difference between trusting an institution to deliver a predictable experience for you, vs. trusting it to be able to go beyond its current practices to do something values-driven that you might want it to do.

      Trying to collapse both definitions into a word “trust” in a headline is, well, the type of thing I expect of modern editorial practices where good journalism is given inane titles by click-optimizing editorial staff, and thus something that causes my “trust” in the headlines vs. in the reporting itself to diverge.

    • By dfxm12 2025-01-3015:34

      The data you're presenting doesn't limit those polled to teens though. The specific question asked also appears to be different. If you have an issue with Common Sense Media, please make a coherent argument. Don't be disingenuous.

    • By flohofwoe 2025-01-309:03

      Tbf, back in 2021 my view on the Silicon Valley oligarchy also was quite different than it is today ;)

HackerNews