I'm not sure what the solution to the problem you're talking about is though? We can't all spend all our time diving into the data of everything ourselves... so we kind of have to trust people that are doing the hard work.
If your friend shouldn't trust the financial magazine that he likes, what should he do? What would make him more knowledgeable than he currently is?
I'm not sure what the solution to the problem you're talking about is though?
When it comes to information, technology provides some answers through web of trust systems that can take multiple sources, each with confidence scores, and combine them. But for many things, we don't even need that level, we just need to be more aware of the world in general at the local level. My friend needs to consume less from the advertised sources, and instead pay attention to what is happening around him. He sees a lot in his position - he should work out what it means by himself, rather than looking to be right or wrong in comparison to an advert.
Do you have an example of a web of trust systems with the confidence scores? I've heard about it theoretically but I've never actually seen it in action.
I understand what you're saying about the local level... if your friend is reading about good economic metrics being achieved, but the people in his community are losing their jobs and their houses, that's a pretty massive disconnect. I guess it'd have to be all about balance, he shouldn't be oblivious to what his peers and competitors are consuming either.
Walter Lippman, controversial as he might be, pointed out that Democracy will fail because it's impossible to be an informed citizen, as informing oneself about all the topics in an adequate way to be able to vote consciously would take up too much time and energy, every day, because it would mean considering all sides and arguments. That was around 1920. He'd get a heart attack even thinking about that today, and he was right, the overflow of news (not the neutral information) is undermining democracy substantially.
I was thinking through an idea a long time ago about using blockchain technology to allow citizens to vote on policies that affect them so they wouldn't have to rely on politicians... but I think this is the reason why it wouldn't work - how could I vote if my city budget should be spent on building a new intersection when I don't know anything about road construction, city budgets, tenders, trustworthy contractors, traffic flow, etc etc etc. Obviously things get way more complex when talking about state or federal policy.
I think ultimately we have to find experts and institutions that we can trust because I can barely keep on top of the things people trust me for, let alone all the areas I don't know.
Rather than voting on a political party, you could be given a 100 point checklist of importance, and (using that web of trust for personal weighting) choose what is important to you. Then, once they are all compiled, there is a clear way forward based on the opinions of the people, and then it runs like a business - the best people for the role get hired. You don't need to know anything about how to build an iphone to buy one.
But who chooses the best people for the role? Are people voting on all the candidates or is there an elected administrator? If there is an elected administrator, how can we be sure they don't just pick their cousin or someone who bribes them?
Who decides on the actual solutions for the items of importance? How are budgets divided up, who approves that?
A political party doesn't just set overall policy, they do a lot of the administration as well. If there are agencies involved, they'll report into the political party's administrators to work on the detail. This is why I don't think this could work... the level of decision-making required is almost infinite - the public doesn't know enough to make those decisions.