3 ms·
> It's very US-centric thats a strange critique considering the article. i mean the whole thing just focuses on the american society... why is that a problem?
by y4mi 8y ago
> It's very US-centric
thats a strange critique considering the article. i mean the whole thing just focuses on the american society... why is that a problem?
> [quote] This is absolute nonsense
While this quote is indeed nonesens with no context, thats not exactly what the author meant there
Back then, quick organization and initiatives weren't really possible.
Take each of your example and check just how long it took for them to become widespread. It was years - not hours as it is today.
And in order to actually organize something political, a leader of such a popular organization would've to intervene, making his point spot on.
- itamarst 8y agoThe general argument is "X has this impact on Y" (in this case, Internet and US). Given that X is global, that the Internet impacts many countries, a reasonable perspective would involve at least looking at how X impacted A, B, and C, which might prove that the impact is merely correlation in the time, not causation. Or it might strengthen the argument. But in its current form it's a universal claim backed by very limited evidence (and ignoring evidence that suggests other causes than the Internet).