If you read the interview, Bill Gates rightly predicted the rise of sophisticated networks of trust, content raters and algorithms that would tell you what is worth reading and what isn't. It's no one's fault that no one listens to those recommendations--it's just human nature to be predisposed to confirmation bias.
But Pratchett's claim--that all information would have the same veneer of authority on equal terms--is patently false today. Everyone knows how to filter for content they should believe and content they shouldn't. The only problem is, everyone's opinion of what is 'fake' is different.
> It's no one's fault that no one listens to those recommendations
People do, in fact, listen to the recommendations.
Those gatekeepers, however, are just as heavily biased as the “news sources”, which themselves are actually just gatekeepers for freelance writers and press release mills.
Whatever point in the network is influential is, obviously, the highest value target for corruption, and more layers of gatekeepers with no greater inherent resistance to corruption don't change anything.
> But Pratchett's claim--that all information would have the same veneer of authority on equal terms--is patently false today.
No, it's not.
> Everyone knows how to filter for content they should believe and content they shouldn't.
Yeah, everyone knows how to select the gatekeepers that reinforce their preconceived biases.
> sophisticated networks of trust, content raters and algorithms that would tell you what is worth reading
Didn't this happen? Some versions more formalized by others but isn't this what people mean by an individual's bubble? The concern being that these bubbles can be so different as to be incompatible with others.
But Pratchett's claim--that all information would have the same veneer of authority on equal terms--is patently false today. Everyone knows how to filter for content they should believe and content they shouldn't. The only problem is, everyone's opinion of what is 'fake' is different.