I like the buffet analogy. It is a good example of "choice architecture" a la Cass and Sunstein from "Nudge". Nudge is one of a number of works arguing that we factor in more than economically rational criteria--such as marginal cost of going backwards in the buffet line--when making decisions.
While Cass and Sunstein argue for government action in framing healthier choices, this post puts the onus on us to a.) recognize that information consumption involves choices, and b.) be more active thinkers consumers of information.
The funny thing about governmental "nudges". The vast majority of them - and there are a lot of them - are already used a lot, to meet unwritten administrative goals.
A small example is the DMV person failing to tell you about an option you have that costs them more work. A big one is the Rick Scott administration's design of the unemployment system in Florida:
I applaud the idea of deliberately thinking about this stuff; one reason why governmental programs go off the rails is that programs are implemented in bad faith (or just "lazy faith"). So insofar as you actually want competent government, bringing attention to this stuff is positive. I'm a bit less optimistic about improving individual behavior that way, but then I'm a pessimist about that topic in general.
While Cass and Sunstein argue for government action in framing healthier choices, this post puts the onus on us to a.) recognize that information consumption involves choices, and b.) be more active thinkers consumers of information.