What makes central authorities and mainstream popular media inherently more suspicious?

I disagree that having worked on tech projects would help you spot propaganda. It is illogical to assume you're an expert on the stock market just because you know how to code. (There's a fallacy name for this one which is escaping me)

> What makes central authorities and mainstream popular media inherently more suspicious?

I'll take a stab.

Central authorities tend to be and to become political in nature. Their incentives include, among other things, maintaining their funding and not looking bad (eg: maintaining a purpose for existing, excusing their own misbehavior, making any political benefactors happy). What they say will probably align with those institutional incentives first, before truth. It can also stop them from saying things they ought to.

Mainstream popular media does not exist to be an objective arbiter of truth but instead because enough people want to consume it. It's a business, albeit a business that has an incredible amount of power over not only the public's opinion, but what they should care about, both through what they report and what they don't report. They will push as many emotional buttons as they can to keep you coming back. Because they have a lot of power over the public they are targets for actors wishing to advance their own goals. Individual journalists are not a-political and you shouldn't expect them to be. Assume all reporting is tribal (especially if you agree with it), and that not only is the story as presented probably biased towards their own view of the world but that they've probably also left inconvenient things out. Political creatures tend to associate with those they agree with, and are in turn controlled by the group. Potential ostracism from their in-group is another source of bias.

This makes sense. It's hard to find the truth given extreme polarization. I don't trust individual posts on social media. My reasoning for trusting mainstream news outlets was that maybe they have more journalistic integrity than the newcomers who have a lot less to lose. I guess I must rethink.

First, high frequency trading is using code to gain alpha in stock market trading. Tech expertise is more important than reading balance sheets in this arena. It may be illogical, but it works and are used by many high profile Wall Street firms.

Most people working in tech have sense of awareness, that things are not quite what they seem. That's why there are so many people in tech heavily involved in decentralization, crypto, etc.

While I agree in principle, the easiest way to fall for propaganda is to believe yourself immune to it.

I would advocate for a two-track solution where you keep a healthy skepticism but try to be aware of your own pareidolia and possible lack of understanding of certain topics, and accept the idea that we are just jumping from one bubble to another (notice how "question the narrative" people tend to speak and think along the same tropes?)

I don't mean total skepticism of everything for its own sake, but the idea that a person ought to pick their battles carefully and keep reminding themselves that they can't understand the world as easily as they think they do. It's important not to confuse skepticism for insight or critical thought.

> Always question everything you are told, especially by central authorities, mainstream popular media, etc.

This is how conspiracy theories start.

May I ask your definition of "conspiracy theory"?

Trump is a central authority and fox news is a mainstream popular media. I don't think that questioning them amounts to conspiracy theories or that doing it should get you banned.