4 ms·
But is that really new? Other than scale and reach (quantitative difference), how is that any different qualitatively from the old grapevine/gossip network? "My
by phs318u 6y ago
But is that really new? Other than scale and reach (quantitative difference), how is that any different qualitatively from the old grapevine/gossip network? "My dad's co-worker's, girlfriend's uncle works at ... and said..."
- gameswithgo 6y agothe scale and reach
- buzzerbetrayed 6y ago“My dad's co-worker's, girlfriend's uncle works at ... and said...” doesn’t reach the whole world instantaneously
- jacquesm 6y agoIt does now.
- mc32 6y agoThat didn't get disseminated and diffused to tens of millions. If something was published they'd look for official sources or corroborating sources and or secondary evidence. If AP, EFE, UPI, Kyodo, Interfax etc all get their news from one source [Twitter] that's just laziness.
- baddox 6y ago“ A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on” has been a cliche for a hundred years. I don’t think internet social networks are a difference in kind, but they probably are a difference in degree.
- phs318u 6y agoAgreed but I said "apart from scale and reach". The point I was trying to make was that people have always found it fairly easy to believe non-credible sources. In this sense, social media is not qualitatively different. Only quantitatively different.
- ergl 6y agoA large quantitative change is indistinguishable from a qualitative change: what's the difference between light rain and a flood, between some small waves and a tsunami?
- phs318u 6y agoWhat I meant, is that in the eyes/ears of those RECEIVING the information (and believing it uncritically), there's no difference. People have always had a predisposition to uncritically accepting information from those "in the tribe", whether that be extended family, or an internet echo chamber. Presumably this was a survival optimisation. Trust those "close", and distrust "others".