5 ms·

Institutions of ordered information (papers, publishers, tv) have been disrupted by a New tech - the internet What we see now is a knee-jerk reaction to reesta

Institutions of ordered information (papers, publishers, tv) have been disrupted by a New tech - the internet What we see now is a knee-jerk reaction to reestablish order by the establishment. This happened too with the creation of the gutenberg printing press. New tech disrupted established information sources. Approx 60 years after the printing press creation, a relatively minor religious squabble ended up in a huge conflict that engulfed most major powers in europe. Truth is power. The institutions that that control the truth will fight to maintain their power.

markdown 5y ago
> Truth is power. The institutions that that control the truth will fight to maintain their power. We can only hope they win, else the Alex Jones', Tucker Carlsons', and Robert F Kennedys of the world will take us straight to climate destruction.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- glennvtx 5y ago
  It is sad to think there are people out there that actually want tyrants to win against a distributed system for information and justice.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  Have you personally destroyed the climate because of what one of those people said? Or are you immune to it through some kind of superiority of intellect or luck of living in the one final correct culture of true information in all of history?
Overton-Window 5y ago
The internet will kill most every institution that predated it. Citizen journalism killed media. Netflix/YouTube killed Hollywood. Blockchains will replace 51% democracy with 100% democracy. Dying inherited institutions are grasping to stay relevant with appeals to authoritarianism. Free speech is now a hinderance and a liability to their existence. As their relevance dwindles, tyranny becomes their only tool.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Can you expand on that 100% democracy part? It doesn't seem like any system would allow 100% of the people to all be governed by their preferred set of rules when at least some of those rules would always conflict with ones that others want to live with.
  - Overton-Window 5y ago
    You have three ways to vote: 1. With your ballot: very small chance of changing policies (1 vote) 2. With your wallet: small chance of changing policies (n votes through political donations) 3. With your feet: guaranteed chance of changing policies The internet facilities 100% democracy as it simplifies voting with your feet (remote work, social networks), allowing likeminded individuals to congregate and influence policy. Blockchain furthers this, unlocking the ability to have a referendum on every issue, which maximises consent.
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      Thanks for a thoughtful response! I agree more referendums would get to a better level of participatory democracy. Though on any specific issue it could still be a 51% win with 49% going away angry. I'm not sure how blockchains makes more frequent referendums easier. Maybe harder to game the system? Apart from that it seems like a platform for regular referendums could be built without blockchains. It's still relative early days on that tech though, and amidst "Blockchain" being attached to anything anyone wants to hype, I have ended up being a bit skeptical of claims they can fit a given purpose until it goes beyond the conceptual stage.
      - Overton-Window 5y ago
        Math is more trustworthy than the state. One of the few things both Democrats and Republicans can agree on is the state of the Bitcoin ledger. Political representation becomes obsolete with blockchains that can facilitate a referendum on every issue without the need for centralised trust.
exporectomy 5y ago
What institutions and who's the establishment? Facebook is the censor but also the disruptor of those institutions, so it can't be them. The world isn't necessarily controlled by some illuminati-like organization. That belief comes from a cognitive bias called "Agent-detection bias" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection It may simply be that free information created a bit of a power vacuum (perhaps the same as with the printing press?) so there's a scramble for power by all the people engaged in the culture war, not just existing powerful people but anyone who sees an opportunity.
- IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago
  You answered your own question. You nailed it. Its a free for all. Winner takes all. High stakes in play
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    Those are huge portions of the population, not some powerful individual bosses. Everyone who advocates for free speech is part of that power struggle fighting against everyone who wants censorship of ideas they don't want to become popular.
ineedasername 5y ago
While I don't disagree about the knee-jerk reaction, the Guttenber comparison isn't quite apples-to-apples: When Guttenberg made the press, access to it's output had a strong filter: most people couldn't read, and anyone who could read was highly educated for the times. Social media doesn't have a filter like that, and higher levels of education generally correlate to lower levels of belief in things like conspiracy theories. Also keep in mind that the T+60 years conflict you're referencing, while greatly assisted by the printing press, was also greatly pushed along by the masses being told what to think by their preachers or by powerful elite looking to destabilize the status quo to their own benefit. The peasants of the peasant revolution weren't reading criticisms of the Catholic Church and coming to their own country conclusions, they were given emotional polemics by people like Storch sparking extreme levels of fanaticism. So, yes, there is a lot in both situations about power struggles with the established order, but most people are being influenced more by emotionally charged arguments and tribal loyalties than they are by increased access to level-headed rational presentations of an issue.
- lmm 5y ago
  > Also keep in mind that the T+60 years conflict you're referencing, while greatly assisted by the printing press, was also greatly pushed along by the masses being told what to think by their preachers or by powerful elite looking to destabilize the status quo to their own benefit. The peasants of the peasant revolution weren't reading criticisms of the Catholic Church and coming to their own country conclusions, they were given emotional polemics by people like Storch sparking extreme levels of fanaticism. That part seems very much apples-to-apples with what's happening now.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    That... Yes, thanks for pointing that out. Took me a second to realize I'd somewhat argued around my initial point. I suppose my initial point was simply that with the printing press, it all still required a direct middleman: most people still didn't have much greater access to the required material to make up their own minds. These days with the internet, that access actually exists, yet most people aren't really seeking it out. Possibly because, given that access, people are more likely to feel they've made an informed choice even if to more comprehensive information goes u used? Maybe? I'm not sure, but there's a different dynamic at play. Both "revolutions" had (and have) great potential to allow individuals to make more informed choices, but in the case of Guttenberg the educational bottleneck to get there was still narrow... These days for some reason the bottleneck is more if a self-imposed barrier. Although education is still a factor: I try to read news sources from the full range of points of view, but they all may report on something like the latest bit of research-by-PR release differently. I have enough of an education to know I should seek out the research publication itself and I understand how to approach a formal writeup of research to provide me with at least a low pass filter against poor quality work. I have enough of an education to be skeptical of simple solutions to complex problems and instead thing about edge cases and failure modes or poor incentive structure. I can absolutely still be wrong, but if I'm wrong I will still have failed after going through a more rigorous process in an attempt to figure things out. I'm still more likely to ultimately accept a result that runs counter to my initial-- perhaps emotionally charged-- response on an issue as a result. And perhaps of equal importance at a time where tribal loyalty often demands complete condemnation if anyone outside the group, I understand enough to realize that people with another viewpoint aren't inherently bad/evil/anti-patriotic because reasonable people can disagree, less reasonable people are still complex and not one-dimensionlly defined by a particular belief, and lines between spectrums if belief and just that-- on a spectrum rather than clear cut all or nothing lines in the sand. I don't know... Maybe that's just me patting myself on the back. But even if educationally institutions can be inadvertently biased towards specific viewpoints, I still believe they expose people to many more ways of looking at something from multiple directions, in a less emotionally charged venue than social media in the internet. I've had teachers that I consider to be the model for how that should occur when I found out afterwards that the points of view they were encouraging me to consider went completely counter to their own strongly held beliefs. Absent straw men, you aren't going to get anything near that approach from whatever talking head you're watching on TV or YouTube, or captioned meme photo that comes across your social media feed.
SquishyPanda23 5y ago
What Facebook is disrupting is propaganda. Propaganda used to only be achievable by nation states. Now anyone with money can play. They aren't democratizing access to truth because search costs for finding accurate information are higher.
IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
> Truth is power. No, but mindless post-modernist drivel is annoying. “Vaccines work” happens to be true. It’s not “the establishment” being afraid to lose power, it’s sane people taking an interest in others’ survival.

markdown 5y ago

> Truth is power. The institutions that that control the truth will fight to maintain their power. We can only hope they win, else the Alex Jones', Tucker Carlsons', and Robert F Kennedys of the world will take us straight to climate destruction.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
glennvtx 5y ago
It is sad to think there are people out there that actually want tyrants to win against a distributed system for information and justice.
exporectomy 5y ago
Have you personally destroyed the climate because of what one of those people said? Or are you immune to it through some kind of superiority of intellect or luck of living in the one final correct culture of true information in all of history?

Overton-Window 5y ago

The internet will kill most every institution that predated it. Citizen journalism killed media. Netflix/YouTube killed Hollywood. Blockchains will replace 51% democracy with 100% democracy. Dying inherited institutions are grasping to stay relevant with appeals to authoritarianism. Free speech is now a hinderance and a liability to their existence. As their relevance dwindles, tyranny becomes their only tool.

ineedasername 5y ago
Can you expand on that 100% democracy part? It doesn't seem like any system would allow 100% of the people to all be governed by their preferred set of rules when at least some of those rules would always conflict with ones that others want to live with.
- Overton-Window 5y ago
  You have three ways to vote: 1. With your ballot: very small chance of changing policies (1 vote) 2. With your wallet: small chance of changing policies (n votes through political donations) 3. With your feet: guaranteed chance of changing policies The internet facilities 100% democracy as it simplifies voting with your feet (remote work, social networks), allowing likeminded individuals to congregate and influence policy. Blockchain furthers this, unlocking the ability to have a referendum on every issue, which maximises consent.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    Thanks for a thoughtful response! I agree more referendums would get to a better level of participatory democracy. Though on any specific issue it could still be a 51% win with 49% going away angry. I'm not sure how blockchains makes more frequent referendums easier. Maybe harder to game the system? Apart from that it seems like a platform for regular referendums could be built without blockchains. It's still relative early days on that tech though, and amidst "Blockchain" being attached to anything anyone wants to hype, I have ended up being a bit skeptical of claims they can fit a given purpose until it goes beyond the conceptual stage.
    - Overton-Window 5y ago
      Math is more trustworthy than the state. One of the few things both Democrats and Republicans can agree on is the state of the Bitcoin ledger. Political representation becomes obsolete with blockchains that can facilitate a referendum on every issue without the need for centralised trust.

exporectomy 5y ago

What institutions and who's the establishment? Facebook is the censor but also the disruptor of those institutions, so it can't be them. The world isn't necessarily controlled by some illuminati-like organization. That belief comes from a cognitive bias called "Agent-detection bias" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection It may simply be that free information created a bit of a power vacuum (perhaps the same as with the printing press?) so there's a scramble for power by all the people engaged in the culture war, not just existing powerful people but anyone who sees an opportunity.

IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago
You answered your own question. You nailed it. Its a free for all. Winner takes all. High stakes in play
- exporectomy 5y ago
  Those are huge portions of the population, not some powerful individual bosses. Everyone who advocates for free speech is part of that power struggle fighting against everyone who wants censorship of ideas they don't want to become popular.

ineedasername 5y ago

While I don't disagree about the knee-jerk reaction, the Guttenber comparison isn't quite apples-to-apples: When Guttenberg made the press, access to it's output had a strong filter: most people couldn't read, and anyone who could read was highly educated for the times. Social media doesn't have a filter like that, and higher levels of education generally correlate to lower levels of belief in things like conspiracy theories. Also keep in mind that the T+60 years conflict you're referencing, while greatly assisted by the printing press, was also greatly pushed along by the masses being told what to think by their preachers or by powerful elite looking to destabilize the status quo to their own benefit. The peasants of the peasant revolution weren't reading criticisms of the Catholic Church and coming to their own country conclusions, they were given emotional polemics by people like Storch sparking extreme levels of fanaticism. So, yes, there is a lot in both situations about power struggles with the established order, but most people are being influenced more by emotionally charged arguments and tribal loyalties than they are by increased access to level-headed rational presentations of an issue.

lmm 5y ago
> Also keep in mind that the T+60 years conflict you're referencing, while greatly assisted by the printing press, was also greatly pushed along by the masses being told what to think by their preachers or by powerful elite looking to destabilize the status quo to their own benefit. The peasants of the peasant revolution weren't reading criticisms of the Catholic Church and coming to their own country conclusions, they were given emotional polemics by people like Storch sparking extreme levels of fanaticism. That part seems very much apples-to-apples with what's happening now.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  That... Yes, thanks for pointing that out. Took me a second to realize I'd somewhat argued around my initial point. I suppose my initial point was simply that with the printing press, it all still required a direct middleman: most people still didn't have much greater access to the required material to make up their own minds. These days with the internet, that access actually exists, yet most people aren't really seeking it out. Possibly because, given that access, people are more likely to feel they've made an informed choice even if to more comprehensive information goes u used? Maybe? I'm not sure, but there's a different dynamic at play. Both "revolutions" had (and have) great potential to allow individuals to make more informed choices, but in the case of Guttenberg the educational bottleneck to get there was still narrow... These days for some reason the bottleneck is more if a self-imposed barrier. Although education is still a factor: I try to read news sources from the full range of points of view, but they all may report on something like the latest bit of research-by-PR release differently. I have enough of an education to know I should seek out the research publication itself and I understand how to approach a formal writeup of research to provide me with at least a low pass filter against poor quality work. I have enough of an education to be skeptical of simple solutions to complex problems and instead thing about edge cases and failure modes or poor incentive structure. I can absolutely still be wrong, but if I'm wrong I will still have failed after going through a more rigorous process in an attempt to figure things out. I'm still more likely to ultimately accept a result that runs counter to my initial-- perhaps emotionally charged-- response on an issue as a result. And perhaps of equal importance at a time where tribal loyalty often demands complete condemnation if anyone outside the group, I understand enough to realize that people with another viewpoint aren't inherently bad/evil/anti-patriotic because reasonable people can disagree, less reasonable people are still complex and not one-dimensionlly defined by a particular belief, and lines between spectrums if belief and just that-- on a spectrum rather than clear cut all or nothing lines in the sand. I don't know... Maybe that's just me patting myself on the back. But even if educationally institutions can be inadvertently biased towards specific viewpoints, I still believe they expose people to many more ways of looking at something from multiple directions, in a less emotionally charged venue than social media in the internet. I've had teachers that I consider to be the model for how that should occur when I found out afterwards that the points of view they were encouraging me to consider went completely counter to their own strongly held beliefs. Absent straw men, you aren't going to get anything near that approach from whatever talking head you're watching on TV or YouTube, or captioned meme photo that comes across your social media feed.

SquishyPanda23 5y ago

What Facebook is disrupting is propaganda. Propaganda used to only be achievable by nation states. Now anyone with money can play. They aren't democratizing access to truth because search costs for finding accurate information are higher.

IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago

> Truth is power. No, but mindless post-modernist drivel is annoying. “Vaccines work” happens to be true. It’s not “the establishment” being afraid to lose power, it’s sane people taking an interest in others’ survival.