3 ms·
Exactly! If it wasn't a problem before then it won't be a problem today either. Nothing fallacious about that. The evolution of technology usually has very limi
by peferron 9y ago
Exactly! If it wasn't a problem before then it won't be a problem today either. Nothing fallacious about that. The evolution of technology usually has very limited impact; WW1 and WW2 were barely more destructive than the wars that preceded them, after all, and WW3 will surely be no worse.
Edit: The above is sarcasm. It probably deserves the downvotes, but at least I want to make clear that I don't mean this stuff. The amount of psychological research, behavior tracking, and personalization that goes into keeping people "engaged" with their phones has never been seen before. It just seems so outlandish to argue that it won't be a problem because we turned out fine despite having TV as kids, nevermind that it only offered a handful of completely un-personalized TV channels and zero user tracking (apart from the tiny fraction with a Nielsen box). I just don't get it, especially here on HN where I'm sure many people have an idea of what's going on behind e.g. the Facebook feed.
- emodendroket 9y agoAnd what's more, television certainly did drastically change people's attention spans, the nature of news and the public debate, etc. Compare the rhetoric of 19th-Century politicians with what you hear today.
- ryukafalz 9y agoSerious question, I don't know the answer to this: was the rhetoric of 19th century politicians different because people were more civil/thoughtful in general or just because there were (most likely) proportionally fewer people paying attention? (Doubtless a bit of both, I suppose.)
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- emodendroket 9y agohttp://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/turnout.php http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/turnout.php Voter turnout as a percentage of eligible voters was significantly higher, so I don't think that's it.