I see a lot of hate against the concept of doing one's own research on the internet and it really bothers me. The problem is not doing one's own research. The scientists that wrote this paper also did their own research. All scientists (should) do their own research. That's inherent to science and that's part of what got humanity this far. The problem is that some people lack the capabilities to properly assess information sources and draw correct conclusions from them. So these people end up with incorrect beliefs. Of course they could just "trust the experts" instead, but how are they supposed to know which experts to trust if they're not good at assessing sources of information? Finding those experts is in itself a task that requires you to do your own research.

TL;DR: I think this hate on "doing your own research" is unjustified. People believing nonsense is a problem that is inescapable and inherent to humanity.

Outside of tech circles pretty much nobody seems to have noticed how bad google search has become over the least years - unfortunately there's no single search engine that's "general purpose good", like google used to be.

It's somewhat ironic that nowadays using metasearch engines often makes sense again - for those too young to remember, that was the default way of searching in the mid to late 90s, until google came along with consistently good search results.

Yes. Let me Google that for you is no longer enough, a combination of search engine enshittification, state disinformation efforts by Russia and China, propaganda efforts by plutocrats, The Heritage Foundation and religious ministries and the removal of critical thinking trainig from public education in the US. Also mass politicization where the shoes worn by a candy mascot is grounds for outrage.

It seems to have lead to an era of the deep dive podcast where hosts cite sources. But its our responsibility to confirm those sourses when able.

The biggest issue is that true information is behind paywalls while the lies are handed out for free.

Americans have an almost Pavlovian response to news at this point, where they fundamentally can not trust a source of information until that source suggests the reader begin taking erection medication.

Nahhhhh, I researched this... You think it's just a coincidence that this is also what the liberal media would want us to think?!?

As mod of conspiracy_theories, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that's bullshit

If you listened to the mainstream media, the last few years you'd think the economy was booming. If you did your own research and listen to experts like Adam Taggart or Wealthion, fractures in the housing market were apparent for almost a year before the mainstream media started reporting that

We grew up being told we fight for freedom when really we fight for a fascist apartheid ethnostate in the middle east

We grew up being told Weed was worse than alcohol

We grew up being told if you didn't go to college, you couldn't get a job, while cost of tuition and textbooks outpaced inflation

The media doesn't exist to inform people. Whether your left or right wing I think that's something everyone can agree on. From a political science standpoint, the media exists to create an agenda. Often times, that includes misinforming people.

Can doing your own research get you into some conspiracy theories? Sure. The problem with that is everyone's conspiring, even the mainstream media

Also, the people "doing their own research" often aren't intelligent enough to know what is real versus what is made-up garbage, and are gullible enough to believe whatever they happen to read.

Kind of a bummer that they’re talking about the phrase “do your own research” and misinformation, but didn’t include the paper specifically about the phrase “do your own research”.

https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/support-for-doing-your-own-research-is-associated-with-covid-19-misperceptions-and-scientific-mistrust/

Doing your own research isn't the problem, it's how you go about it that is, some will just believe whatever bs static gets put infont of them without understanding the data, how it was collected, etc. and some will blatantly cherry pick to feed their own bias.

Title makes no sense. Researchers did "their own research". Experts and non experts do "their own research". Simply there are people who knows how to do it and to draw meaningful conclusions from sources and data, and people who don't.

when someone sees an article online about an “engineered famine” due to COVID-19 lockdowns and vaccines, and conducts an unsophisticated search based on those keywords, they may find articles that reaffirm their bias.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Confirmation bias is real.

Google's IPO literally ruined the entire society. Don't be evil!™

SEO and Ai have been very heavy influincers in the degradation of journalistic integrity and reporting facts *while dumbing things down for clicks.

It led directly to a more radicalized and less informed public.

The vast majority of people think that the first answer on Google is still correct. That simply isn't true anymore because people started to game the system and Google let them do it to gain a shitloat of ad money.

It's disgusting that they don't have the morals to rein things in.

I remember a time when "doing their own research" was just "read"... Yes I read, please stop shaming me for it..

That's what they want you to believe. I did my own research and it turns out you are wrong. Checkmate atheist /s

It's because the education system is utterly outdated across the world. No digital literacy, media literacy, or health literacy in the curriculum but lots of things you'll never need and forget to never be useful again within a few months. Studies should investigate things relating to this subject.

It's also because of the quality of search engine results but both are directly linked, people need to learn how to use search engines etc.

While conventional wisdom holds that researching the veracity of fake news would reduce belief in misinformation, a study published on Wednesday in Nature has found that using online search engines to vet conspiracies can actually increase the chance that someone will believe it. The researchers point to a known problem in search called "data voids." Sometimes, there's not a lot of high-quality information to counter misleading headlines or surrounding fringe theories. So, when someone sees an article online about an “engineered famine” due to COVID-19 lockdowns and vaccines, and conducts an unsophisticated search based on those keywords, they may find articles that reaffirm their bias.

This is interesting and something I hadn't really thought about before. The Internet's conspiracy circles are becoming a giant, weapons-grade "gish gallop". The difference is that nobody is even arguing with the original conspiracy theorist so nobody even gets a chance to counter any of the arguments until they've become mainstream enough for those wishing to counter to be made aware of them.

so instead we only trust the knowledge clerics?

Was this written by the actual soyjak?

I know it won't fix the problem, but I highly recommend using less biased search engines like DuckDuckGo

The modern day "do your own research means find whatever supports your confirmation bias". However, I feel like there's a lot of discouragement against a healthy skepticism as well, which is... not healthy either.

I blame social media more than Google. Looking at you, Elon.