6 ms·
But wasn't the alternative in the past just less data and fewer people with power to create preserved data?
by baddox 6y ago
But wasn't the alternative in the past just less data and fewer people with power to create preserved data?
- Spooky23 6y agoNo, you had letters and other primary source material. The garbage on Twitter is literally garbage and propaganda. The bleating of various mouthpieces are only useful in coordination with events and real documents.
- baddox 6y agoDon't you suppose that letters also contained a lot of garbage and propaganda? I don't think we are generating less primary source material now that will be usable by future historians.
- reaperducer 6y agoNot really. People were more carful and precise with what they wrote back then because writing takes effort, and the expense of paper, envelopes, ink, pens, and stamps wasn't insignificant. Today, people just throw a bunch of words on the internet without thought or care, and if people react to it, Yay! We're an influencer!
- baddox 6y agoI just don't really buy it. I imagine those people back then were also complaining about how the kids these days don't care enough to communicate properly. https://xkcd.com/1227/ https://xkcd.com/1227/
- Spooky23 6y agoI spent a lot of time reading primary source material in college and as an intern at an archive. People didn’t preserve crap or spend money to send so much of it. The closest thing are postcards from the early 20th century, and they are more banal then the garbage on Twitter. The difference is the egotistical impact of the platform. Most successful Twitter influencers who aren’t domain specialists are monsters.