But it’s not that they are feeding us mis-truths. They are transmitting the truth of the future, or a deeper druth.

The human brain adapts,as you say, to some extent. But the human brai,as much as it seeks freedom to believe, also responds to authority and authoritative figures.

The belief that someone has greater insights or greater access to the truth explains why pastors and clergy has so much sway over the flock. Theree’s a reason they are referred to as “flock”.

We are programmed to accept as the truth that which comes from those of higher authority, whether moral, political, business, etc.

Look at how people buy, hook, line and sinker what politicians feed tehm in the heat of a campaign.

No one listens to the fact checkers.

Who reads the corrections in the New York TImes?

When the Papal encyclical absolved the Jewish people for the death of Jesus, how much did that do to eliminate 20 centuries of blind hatred?

So when Wikipedia is established as an authority, and that is what encyclopedias have always sought, the very idea that there is a lag between any “weirdo” entering information and it then getting delivered toi the masses who may or may not be able to filter out or forget the erroneous information, there’s a problem.

Purity of information, as defined by its faithfulness to truth, is perhaps best to be defended by restricting the ability to add to the “free” body of information by anyone.

Do I really believe any of this? No, but, I still don’t want to be part of the club that would have me as a member.

The internet is a very weird thing – it is more “free” than most of what happens in human societies. Various groups are trying to limit what is “free” in the name of a “better common good”. They are probably liars.

The price of such “freedom”  is unpredictability, and perhaps overexposure to the unexpected.

Nothing wrong with that. Hell, that’s why I’m making this comment. :)