• Rcklsabndn@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 hours ago

    My family had a full encyclopedia that they bought one book at a time right around when I was born in the 80s. By the time I was 10 it moved into my bedroom and I’d often stay up too late reading random things.

    Downside was that it was already out of date geopolitically by the time I started thinking about politics.

  • Jankatarch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    There was also that one guy who was 3 years older than you but hanged out with your friend group on occasion and told you things like where kids come from.

  • uid0gid0@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Before there was the Internet there were libraries. Your main reference books were dictionaries for looking up proper definitions of unknown words. Then you had encyclopedias for general topics. To get really specialized you had to consult the Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature. That was an index organized by topic of magazine articles, including scientific ones like Nature. Reference librarians were very helpful in finding specific information in a hurry, and there were some books that couldn’t leave the library.

    • squaresinger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      And encyclopedias before wikipedia had a whole pile of wrong garbage information in them. Because they were compiled quickly by people with little knowledge about the field they were compiling the information for.

        • squaresinger@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Might be. Classic Encyclopedias were worse. Don’t know if you ever used one and looked up stuff for a subject where you have above average expertise. They only contained very surface-level information, rarely more than a paragraph or two, and what they contained was riddled with errors.

  • yermaw@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    22 hours ago

    We got misinformed at a much slower rate though. The newspapers could only tell us so many lies at a time.

      • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        The reporters who propagated lies about WMDs in Iraq or beheaded babies in Israel probably think they’re telling the truth or something close.

      • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        18 hours ago

        no, thats disinformation. disinformation is willful malicious intent to spread misinformation, knowing that its wrong info in order to achieve a certain result(such as propaganda by russia, or giving wrong intel to an enemy). misinfo is just saying potential info that may or may not be true, and no fact checking, and just ignorant to the info.

  • FinishingDutch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 day ago

    This is actually a pretty interesting topic.

    I was born in 1982 and we didn’t get the internet until 1998. Which means I was a kid and teen in a mostly analog world.

    Your day to day knowledge was formed by things you were taught in school, the things you saw on the news and the people you were surrounded by. That gave you a fairly broad understanding of the world.

    If you really NEEDED a correct answer, you’d use an encyclopedia at school or the library, or any specific book on the topic. But you had to be motivated to do that. And even those resources might be limited in scope or unavailable. My local library in the Netherlands would’ve had some books on US history for example, but you wouldn’t really find say, a biography of Jimmy Carter. So at some point, you’d reach the maximum depth of knowledge to be gained in your particular situation.

    The internet really helps us drill down way, WAY deeper than what we could find in the 80’s and 90’s. I can now have in-depth knowledge on the most obscure topic and drill down as far as I want.

    It’s unfortunate that a lot of people don’t use the web for that. Or end up actually misinformed because of it.

    • nightlily@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      23 hours ago

      My high school in NZ was pretty poor, so even in the early 00s, we still had Cold War-era maps of Europe in textbooks and on the wall, and no access to the internet (computers were taught to us as glorified typewriters). It took until I was older than I care to admit to learn that Czechoslovakia was no longer a thing.

      • Trigger2_2000@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        When I graduated HS, the map on the wall in our history class still had “French West Africa” on it (textbooks were at least more up to date :-)) “French West Africa” hadn’t existed for . . . looks it up . . . about a quarter century before then.

        Damn, before I was even born!

  • redwattlebird @lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    24 hours ago

    My biology teacher taught me that peanut oil causes cancer. Can’t get that out of my brain 30+ years later.

    Encyclopaedia sets were expensive but there were all sorts of things you could subscribe to for facts. My parents subscribed me to an animal fact thing where i got some sheets to collect in a folder every month. I’d read the hell out of it and eagerly wait for the next issue. It allowed me to memorise a lot of information about animals.

    I also visited the library a lot more before the internet, and there was also Encarta which died as soon as the internet became mainstream.

  • U7826391786239@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    “breakfast is the most important meal of the day!”

    https://marketingmadeclear.com/kelloggs-marketing-lie/

    tl;dr: it’s fucking not.

    related: you’re not going to 100% die (or even get sick. yes really) if you skip a meal (or even 2), fatass.

    edit: i have to add another thing

    diamond engagement rings are absolute 100% bullshit, which, as a genXer, i only learned later in life. i wouldn’t be adding this if there weren’t still way too many people who are completely bamboozled by this fake “tradition” invented solely to make obscenely wealthy people even more obscenely wealthy.

    • squaresinger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Regarding to the diamond ring thing: Most “old traditions” or “old traditional things” aren’t actually old at all. In most cases, something that has been done for longer than you are alive counts as “old tradition”, because we don’t experience the past through history books and facts, but through our experience and through what adults told us when we grew up.

      • U7826391786239@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        for kids i would agree, it makes sense that it’s better to have breakfast than not–their brains and bodies are actively under construction and need all the macros. but for the remaining 60+ years of life, there are studies supporting the notion that breakfast is optional: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/is-skipping-breakfast-bad#TOC_TITLE_HDR_2 all claims are cited

        ultimately everyone should do what they want, but be skeptical of the “you must eat breakfast” claims bombarding everything everywhere, made by industries that have much to gain from everyone eating breakfast, and almost as much to lose from not everyone eating breakfast.

  • Ordinary_Person@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    I had people arguing with me about blue blood long after the internet was available to everyone. I wouldn’t ever tell them they were stupid, but I would say, “I don’t think that’s right” and they would usually say they learned it in biology or a science class in high school and I would say, “that still doesn’t sound right. We should look that up later when get home to our computers” and then They would look at me like I was the idiot for suggesting they were misinformed in school… because you know… school teachers NEVER misinform their students… like ever 🙄

    Speaking of misinforming your students; shout out to Miss O’Leary for saying Russia could Invade Canada with Tanks because we were landlocked during the colder months via the arctic.

    • Technoworcester@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Fuuuuck. I need to have a look online. I still thought that was true.

      45 - UK - sometimes acts like an adult. Obviously has a lot of garbage stuck in my brain.

      Edit. FUCK. Yup, not blue. Optical illusion.

    • tetris11@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Speaking of misinforming your students; shout out to Miss O’Leary for saying Russia could Invade Canada with Tanks because we were landlocked during the colder months via the arctic.

      For anyone wondering, no it doesn’t freeze over in winter but there are chunks of ice you can hop across that might eventually get you to the firmer ice along the respective shores:

      https://angusadventures.com/adventurer-handbook/beringstrait/

  • Part4@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    Now you are permanently overwhelmed by a tsunami of misinformation spewing out of your addictive phone instead. Progress.

      • Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        Sadly, I gotta disagree. Searching used to be easier, back when search engines prioritized finding useful information. Now they are vehicles for delivering ads and collecting user data.

        Google of the early-2000s era was an entirely different site. I used to be able to find almost anything I needed to search for. As far as I’ve seen, there is nothing comparable to that early-Google out there today. (Though I’d be ecstatic to be proven wrong on that!)

        • tlmcleod@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Said like someone that only looks at the “sponsored” results and thinks search doesn’t work. Exercise that scroll finger some more

        • thermal_shock@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          Yeah I would agree with the other person 20 years ago. If you couldn’t find it online it probably didn’t exist

        • titanicx@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 day ago

          Unfortunately Google is still the king of search engines. Try searching for most technical facts or most common issues or anything else on most search engines and you really can’t find it. You might find some things but you won’t find the amount of information you can find on Google. The problem with the internet nowadays is not that searching has gotten worse, it’s that there is such a plethora of information out there that you have to have the right skill set to be able to go through it. The reason you were able to find everything in the olden days was that there was so few websites out there that it was very very simple to search all of them. And the counterpoint to saying that there is a plethora of misinformation now when you’re looking at your phone simply means that you’re visiting websites and looking at sources that have a plethora of misinformation. It is very very simple to cross reference and find the correct information pretty much anywhere.

        • Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Searx is my way to go when i need to do research, it’s a search engine, that takes results from others

      • Ordinary_Person@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        All the people replying to you arguing that you can’t trust the internet because of AI and Algorithims… this too is a skill issue. Stop going to Google or MSN or Yahoo There are search engines that don’t use algorithms or AI, and others that don’t use algorithms and you can turn off the AI.

        It also helps to understand WHERE you are getting your information from and use watchdog sites that can tell you if a site is a reputable source or not. Heading over to I’Mright.com isn’t going to help you unless you’re looking for confirmation bias.

      • kadaverin0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        I would have agreed with you about 15 years ago when everything on the Internet wasn’t AI slop, calculated misinformation spread by foreign governments, and white supremacists using memes to spread their ideology.

        • Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          Just disable AI slop from you search engine or stop using google and such, learn how to make un-biased searches, start to understand how to spot a fake information and start questioning what you read

          • kadaverin0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Already do that shit, bro. It isn’t a justification for that trash to exist in the first place. And what the hell is a “biased search”?

            • Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              19 hours ago

              I never said that it’s a justification lol, anyway, biased search is when you search something like “Is X better than Y” or something like this, which is wrong to do because it’s biased and so it will give biased results too

              Example:

              If i search “is tomato more healty than potatoes?” Instead of “The pros and cons of eating tomatoes and potatoes” i will get biased results that will mostly say “you should eat only tomatos!!!”

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Who defines the “right information”? The algorithms? The information conforms to what your peer group is saying is the “right information”? It’s consistent with what government agencies are saying?

        We really aren’t any better off than just believing what aunt Marge said since you can find the exact same thing she said and things the exact opposite and which one you believe is just down to what feels right. It’s just believing what aunt Marge said with more steps.

        • U7826391786239@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          ultimately, every individual is responsible for what they choose to take as truth. this is why there has been such an aggressive assault on critical thinking in favor of “parental authority”-- just believe what you’re told and stop asking questions.

          it’s not that hard to separate the plausible from the questionable, from the obvious bullshit.

          as an example, dr. fauci is a doctor. he’s been a doctor for decades, has risen to high positions in the field, has been producing research, also for decades, which has been cited by other experts in the field frequently. and, prior to bullshit claims by trump and the entire GOP, was never the subject of any controversy.

          so the discerning mind has no trouble concluding that it’s reasonable to assume that fauci, who knows what he’s talking about and has no apparent reason to mislead the entire world, is a credible source of information, while trump, a notorious conman who told 30,000 verifiable lies in his first term alone is absolutely NOT. so the GOP preaches “vaccines are bad,” and the “patriotic” american says “vaccines are bad”

          yes it’s fucking mind-bogglingly stupid, but the problem isn’t a lack of availability of information, the problem is information literacy–the skill (yes skill) to separate truth (even if only “likely” truth) from fiction (even if comically obviously fiction). which the GOP is actively, deliberately, visciously undermining, while no one says a thing, because we’re preoccupied by nazi gestapo trump cultists rounding up innocent citizens because they’re brown