3 ms·

> "I wonder what the mechanics of it might be in a democratic society. It was easy to do in USSR: top-down structure allowed state to rule media by orders." In

> "I wonder what the mechanics of it might be in a democratic society. It was easy to do in USSR: top-down structure allowed state to rule media by orders." In this case I doubt there is any sort of formal command structure, or in fact any centralized orchestration at all. Rather what we're seeing is an emergent phenomenon, not unlike fish schooling or birds swarming. All the actors involved are taking cues from their peers and otherwise consume more or less the same information from the environment. Combine that with a relatively uniform philosophy or worldview and the appearance of orchestrated activity emerges.

MichaelMoser123 7y ago
Well, in socialist countries there was no index that would spell out explicitly what is strictly verboten. Ordinary people were expected to know that via hints and rumours. Well if the official media was calling genetics nasty names then that was a strong indicator that genetics is verboten. I guess that the media used to be more directly orchestrated.
- liability 7y ago
  Centralized orchestration is certainly a possibility. I think it's far from certain though, because the observed effect of uniform messaging could also be explained as emergent behaviour. Centralized coordination is probably more likely in some countries, and emergent swarming seems more likely in others. But either way, the end result is pretty similar.
  - MichaelMoser123 7y ago
    I think it is more a difference in editorial style rather than in substance: all media outlets still have an editor who in turn has to answer to the owner of a news outlet - an author can't always write just the stuff that he wants and also get his work published, don't think it works like this. In other words I find it hard to follow the comparison of an author to a fish. Still there is definitely more freedom in a system that doesn't censor every single utterance.

MichaelMoser123 7y ago

Well, in socialist countries there was no index that would spell out explicitly what is strictly verboten. Ordinary people were expected to know that via hints and rumours. Well if the official media was calling genetics nasty names then that was a strong indicator that genetics is verboten. I guess that the media used to be more directly orchestrated.

liability 7y ago
Centralized orchestration is certainly a possibility. I think it's far from certain though, because the observed effect of uniform messaging could also be explained as emergent behaviour. Centralized coordination is probably more likely in some countries, and emergent swarming seems more likely in others. But either way, the end result is pretty similar.
- MichaelMoser123 7y ago
  I think it is more a difference in editorial style rather than in substance: all media outlets still have an editor who in turn has to answer to the owner of a news outlet - an author can't always write just the stuff that he wants and also get his work published, don't think it works like this. In other words I find it hard to follow the comparison of an author to a fish. Still there is definitely more freedom in a system that doesn't censor every single utterance.