On being informed

I’m still processing my old links and notes, the byproduct of a second brain style note-taking system.

This tweet comparing how the NYT reported on layoffs at Coinbase vs. the FTX fiasco is telling. In short, the times had brutal coverage of Coinbase, almost certainly in retaliation for Coinbase’s move to a more neutral workplace, wherein employees wouldn’t be sharing the latest doom-scroll screeds all day.

Sam Bank-Friendman was written about in almost hagiographic prose, as he was one of the key patrons backing the Democratic midterm success.

But I’m not really concerned about the partisan politics; I’m interested in epistemology: Namely, can you be informed with information that’s not factually correct?

Were you a dutiful Times reader up until six months ago or so, you’d have known of SBF as the great altruistic, the billionaire who supported The Science™, one of the crypto “good guys”.

None of that was true.

So are you better off reading the news, being informed when say 50% of the information you “know” is going to not be valid within a year, with the rest will inevitably fading eventually? Or are you better off putting some distance between yourself and current events, reading more sober reflections that will stand the test of time for much longer?