6 ms·

> We didn't bank on the ability of idiots to connect too... The downside of this connecting is not "just" idiots, it's the creation of echo chambers in general

> We didn't bank on the ability of idiots to connect too... The downside of this connecting is not "just" idiots, it's the creation of echo chambers in general. Pre-Facebook social circles only had the capability to form echo chambers when they reached a certain size, something that was greatly inhibited by the reality of the physical world. Today, even the most irrational minds can meet and reinforce each other's beliefs without any effort at all, beyond a few mouseclicks. Idiots are just a subset of the problem. The actual problem is people in general just having their misconceived notions reinforced, rather than having them challenged. It's the opposite of intellectual growth. IMO, Twitter is even worse in this regard.

dmos62 8y ago
Chomsky argued that the medium of television (this was in the pre-internet era) frames any discussion held within it on the outset, because, on it, noone can present an argument longer than 5 minutes, due to logistic reasons, which is insufficient for someone to form an adequate opinion about, and certainly insufficient to change someone's mind. In effect, he was saying that television was an echo chamber, because you'll just end up hearing what you like, all the debates being castrated of the ability to change your mind. 5 minutes. What is the twitter message character limit again?
- asdff 8y ago
  This is on the nose. Even a 5 minute article is too much work, people would rather read a viral twitter screenshot or watch a talking head on youtube read that screenshot back to them.
- tomjen3 8y ago
  Irrelevant. Most posts on blogs are much longer, and some of the most listened to podcasts are hours long.
  - dmos62 8y ago
    This is a critique of "short-form" mediums, like TV, Twitter, Facebook, etc. This is, of course, not a critique of blogs or podcasts (or books, or essays, etc.)

dmos62 8y ago

Chomsky argued that the medium of television (this was in the pre-internet era) frames any discussion held within it on the outset, because, on it, noone can present an argument longer than 5 minutes, due to logistic reasons, which is insufficient for someone to form an adequate opinion about, and certainly insufficient to change someone's mind. In effect, he was saying that television was an echo chamber, because you'll just end up hearing what you like, all the debates being castrated of the ability to change your mind. 5 minutes. What is the twitter message character limit again?

asdff 8y ago
This is on the nose. Even a 5 minute article is too much work, people would rather read a viral twitter screenshot or watch a talking head on youtube read that screenshot back to them.
tomjen3 8y ago
Irrelevant. Most posts on blogs are much longer, and some of the most listened to podcasts are hours long.
- dmos62 8y ago
  This is a critique of "short-form" mediums, like TV, Twitter, Facebook, etc. This is, of course, not a critique of blogs or podcasts (or books, or essays, etc.)