Split

Who do I focus on, the (admittedly awesome) story in my feed about a dedicated mycologist who's tracked mushroom infestations across decades and continents? Or the story I had to search for, written in a prominent magazine by a direct advisor to a large social media company?

Do I focus on the article from someone who watched the effect of that platform firsthand, from advertising to the dissemination of news, from inception to the present day, long enough to write about his worries from an informed perspective? Or do I follow the mushroom hunter on the quest for death caps as it leads him into residential historical records and distant tree nurseries and the occasional cranky neighbor's lawn?

Do I go with the one that feeds me toxic mushrooms, or the one that reflects my concerns from the POV of an ultimate insider?

I go with the one that writes about the issues closer to what I do and what I want to do - although the reach of that media company is such that it's closer to what about 7.5 billion people do. (Edited to revise with a vastly reduced number of 2.32 billion. My mistake.) I choose the article that proposes some course of action to address what that company (and others like it) are doing wrong. And I hope the author is doing well, and that the article was well received by its intended audience. Otherwise, it would be akin to listening to someone complaining about joint pain going diva when asked about PT. The big guy can throw all that weight around, sure, but it won't solve the problem.