4 ms·
I just think they are similar situations. The old controllers of information are being challenged by new technologies. Political forces are involved. It’s very
by keiferski 6y ago
I just think they are similar situations. The old controllers of information are being challenged by new technologies. Political forces are involved. It’s very similar to the 1600s.
This is why any response that attempts to censor or refer to “authoritative” sources just isn’t going to work. Millions and millions of people in the US alone don’t trust the big media companies anymore and likely never will again. That will only increase abroad as social media tech becomes easier to implement and countries like India have homegrown alternatives.
A Counter-Reformation of sorts amongst the media/universities/etc. might draw back some dissidents, but this is clearly not even being considered. I see no other outcome other than the one I referred to above: reputation-based individuals as sources of information.
- croon 6y ago> I just think they are similar situations. The old controllers of information are being challenged by new technologies. Political forces are involved. It’s very similar to the 1600s. The situations differ in that the church was top-down controlling information flow and dictating science, whereas current "authoritative" sources aren't top-down, aren't one organism, and by and large based in science and rigorous research. The effect in regards to institutions might be the same, I don't know, but the outcome at large is the opposite, currently. But I'm all for discussing how to move forward.