3 ms·

> It's not just 1-way, 2-way, or many-to-many; it's all those things simultaneously. Hmm. But isn't the internet/new media heavily balanced towards the 1-way

> It's not just 1-way, 2-way, or many-to-many; it's all those things simultaneously. Hmm. But isn't the internet/new media heavily balanced towards the 1-way communication model ? Does sharing, re-sharing and commenting in the void qualify as 2-way or m2m or is it just an amplifier ? The potential is here but does it really solidify into existence for the vast majority or is just for the vocal groups (NGO, journalists, lobbyists, etc.) ? I have in mind the net delusion [0] and the submarine model [1]. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Net-Delusion-Dark-Internet-Freedom/dp/1610391063 https://www.amazon.com/Net-Delusion-Dark-Internet-Freedom/dp... [1] http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html

maverick_iceman 10y ago
I think there's only a small percentage of the population who have original and interesting things to say. Internet does enable those people to reach an audience which was much harder earlier without institutional support.
cobbzilla 10y ago
there is no question that old-school broadcast media is 1-to-many. it's physically impossible to send a signal upstream in those models (doesn't stop me from yelling at the TV, but I do know it's futile). we can quibble about how much the internet is 1:1 vs 1:N vs N:M, but the fact that we even ask these questions makes the internet a qualitatively different kind of media. as an aside, what are we doing right here, right now? HN uses the internet as a print medium. As a blog it is 1:N, and as a discussion forum is N:M. So yeah, it's complex :)