>"What was the negative impact of the printing press and how did it end society and our ability to pay attention to things?" That's quite a leap from what I sa

>"What was the negative impact of the printing press and how did it end society and our ability to pay attention to things?" That's quite a leap from what I said. I took the stance that there is an element of truth, or at the very least a valid concern. Not that the printing press was going to end society. The tone of the linked article is definitely dismissive, something akin to "why be concerned, look at all these similar panics. We're doing just fine." >"His warnings referred to the seemingly unmanageable flood of information unleashed by the printing press." This is exactly what happened. The printing press was fundamental to the Catholic/Protestant schism, enabled political pamphleteering, and is what caused newspapers to come into existence. Yes, society survived this, but the concern was no doubt real and realized. As for "the doom and gloom never materialized", what is fake news and misinformation but an unmanageable flood of information? >"or the fact you share the same fear actually would lead you to think that this time it's different and tiktok is the technology that'll ruin us?" You're putting words in my mouth. I do not think TikTok is going to ruin society, but I do believe it is having a negative effect on many individuals within it. You had mentioned "doubling down on the same thing", but I think that is misplaced. Superficially the concern is the same, but the cause is different. There hasn't been anything like TikTok and algorithmic recommendation in the history of civilization, so it would be wrong to dismissively assume the panic will pass and concerns about its effects are unfounded and unwarranted because that's what happened with books, radio, television, and so on.