Not an infallible heuristic, but not unreasonable.

With the dissolution of information monopolies, the proliferation of alternate platforms and sources and the increasing freedom and democratization of information, we are all having to learn more and better ways of screening out distractions and cognitive pollution.

There will always be a greater supply of low, no, or negative information than there is time and interest to test and qualify those sources of information.  You have to pick up a host of rules-of-thumb and techniques to screen out the near infinity to a manageable portfolio of sources.  Then, once again, you have to filter a second time because even most good sources will produce a lot of low value material.  

When we were in a higher trust environment, when the quality of the monopoly product was higher and more reliable, it was easy just to accept it out of hand.  Now we have to work for truth.

And the reality is that we probably should have always been working this hard because the monopoly sources were not as trustworthy and quality as we thought.  It was just easier.  

All brought to mind by this pair of observations.

This is SO accurate.

At first you think, "I wonder what the deal is, here?"

And then you ask yourself, "Do I actually want to know?"

Not that much. There will be a new kerfuffle de jour, and soon. https://t.co/ZKKWUXlKLD

— 🅼🅸🅲🅷🅰🅴🅻 🅼🆄🅽🅶🅴🆁 🏖️🔪👨‍🍳 (@mungowitz) March 24, 2024

Just say no to anything that is not obviously useful and pertinent.  Not an infallible heuristic, but not unreasonable.