Informavore
The term informavore (also spelled informivore) characterizes an organism that consumes information. It is meant to be a description of human behavior in modern information society, in comparison to omnivore, as a description of humans consuming food.
There are plenty of clues. It’s not only a question of scratching around for hints, but also a matter of interpretation and depth. How much is elite scheming, how much in incompetence, how much is the action of impersonal forces we cannot control?
To take a very topical UK example, Prime Minister Keir Starmer is an advocate of a global ideology he cannot admit to. His duplicity and incompetence are both obvious, as his his inability to make political use of sound information.
Merely politics we might say, but the widespread contempt Starmer and his colleagues attract feels too significant to be ‘merely politics’. Too many voters obviously know, and too many aren’t afraid of knowing more.
Maybe informavores are becoming more competitive.
Somewhat nebulous this, but the internet is clearly encouraging more people to prefer reliable information over rhetoric and search for integrity over advocacy, analysis over partisan abuse.
Not only that, but a significant number of people are obviously tired of being gaslighted, are demanding better information and that number is increasing. Supply and demand perhaps. Not something we can easily measure, but suppose...
If an anti-gaslighting trend is developing along these lines, if enough people are becoming what we might call 'competitive informavores', then major social changes are on the way. The internet allows anyone with access to be a more competitive informavore who browses much more widely than the mainstream media. We already know that, however we express it.
Not only that, but a significant number of people are obviously tired of being gaslighted, are demanding better information and that number is increasing. Supply and demand perhaps. Not something we can easily measure, but suppose...
If an anti-gaslighting trend is developing along these lines, if enough people are becoming what we might call 'competitive informavores', then major social changes are on the way. The internet allows anyone with access to be a more competitive informavore who browses much more widely than the mainstream media. We already know that, however we express it.
There are plenty of clues. It’s not only a question of scratching around for hints, but also a matter of interpretation and depth. How much is elite scheming, how much in incompetence, how much is the action of impersonal forces we cannot control?
To take a very topical UK example, Prime Minister Keir Starmer is an advocate of a global ideology he cannot admit to. His duplicity and incompetence are both obvious, as his his inability to make political use of sound information.
That's a little weird though, the UK Prime Minister can't make good use of sound information but voters can. If they make the effort of course, if they choose to outcompete the Prime Minister. Which they can.
It's a trend which looms larger than we generally admit, but here’s where the obvious becomes less obvious – is it Starmer's duplicity or incompetence which hinders his ability to compete effectively? Maybe it’s incompetent duplicity, but why so absurdly obvious?
Merely politics we might say, but the widespread contempt Starmer and his colleagues attract feels too significant to be ‘merely politics’. Too many voters obviously know, and too many aren’t afraid of knowing more.
Maybe informavores are becoming more competitive.
5 comments:
Even ferreting informavores, often seen upside down in rabbit holes.
I think a lot of this is due to a tidal wave of rising public expectations. We think the government ought to sort out all of our problems, including those caused by perfectly natural events. They can be blamed for everything that goes wrong, and attacked if they don't put things right.
Previous governments could, if they played this game, get away with lying to the electorate. Promises and statements were quickly forgotten, and there was no way of checking alternative sources other than the "official opposition" and its mouthpieces in the press. Now governments don't even have that luxury. Technology has meant that we have outlived that era, and are into uncharted waters.
James - it's a strange world down those rabbit holes though.
Sam - I agree we have outlived that era of forgotten lies and promises, and we are into uncharted waters. Many of our current politicians seem to be poorly adapted to the change and presumably those behind them aren't much better. Even the old party system could change.
For a long time it was possible to tolerate poor politicians because there was 'the other lot' to vote for instead. My suspicion is that many people now see enough on the intertubes to realise that both main parties are useless, or even harmful.
It seems like they all get out of the same clown car.
DJ - yes, there are lots of media comments about a lack of political choice because all the parties are useless, although many are hopeful about Reform. It's all very fluid, but maybe we'll still sink back into a two party system.
Post a Comment