The decentralisation process and these affects has been going on forever.
First we had the really old days, where few books were printed at all and at great cost. Less misleading information in print, but not very democratic.
Then the printing press and more people could express themselves. So misleading books and documents became more common.
Later the media grew, and with it the amount of sources went up even further. Niche publications that spread 'unpopular' opinions appeared and misleading info spread further.
And with every medium since, the effects grew. Radio, TV, the internet in general, social media sites. Really, it's just an inevitable consequence of less gatekeepers and more people being able to publish their thoughts.
Not so fast, Mr Bond. You mean to tell us that the information in early manuscript such as the Bible and other religious tracts were not misleading? My point is that though they may have been culturally agreed to be true these few authoritative books suffered from a lack of open access to information. So I believe we need to separate out honest intention towards truth and actual empirically and theoretically truthful writings. Another way to put this is that it is not just the technology but the social relations that go with that technology that matter.
First we had the really old days, where few books were printed at all and at great cost. Less misleading information in print, but not very democratic.
Then the printing press and more people could express themselves. So misleading books and documents became more common.
Later the media grew, and with it the amount of sources went up even further. Niche publications that spread 'unpopular' opinions appeared and misleading info spread further.
And with every medium since, the effects grew. Radio, TV, the internet in general, social media sites. Really, it's just an inevitable consequence of less gatekeepers and more people being able to publish their thoughts.