yes that makes sense.
My point is about information availability and social consensus about it.
you're assuming people have shared *trusted* information sources to evaluate threats.
I'm thinking Matts point of view is developed from an assumption people do not share trusted information sources. As a result, social consensus about the reality of a threat could not emerge.
So instead of accurately measuring the real likelihood of a threat,
people can also get hype about a threat that is actually very low probability
or
people can get information that minimizes what may actually be a high probability threat.
Thinking that everyone shares your trust in the information sources you prefer is soooo mid-2000s 😂
its unfortunate.
but its the information space we live in now.