6 ms·

> All the latest Culture Wars, malice, scams, cancellations, filter bubbles, misinformation madness etc would not be possible without the Internet. The latest,

> All the latest Culture Wars, malice, scams, cancellations, filter bubbles, misinformation madness etc would not be possible without the Internet. The latest, sure, by definition. But nah, people were plenty good at getting worked up much earlier than the internet.

api 3y ago
Search for “satanic panic” for a TV era example.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  Go back. Search for "yellow journalism".
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    "Remember the Maine!"
- rchaud 3y ago
  Satanic panic happened in the US, UK and that's it. The ills of the modern internet are globally distributed.
cassianoleal 3y ago
Yes but not at this speed and scale.
- sundvor 3y ago
  Yep, didn't spell that out - but indeed, this.
- chrisco255 3y ago
  Counter point to this, is that centralized mass media enabled early 20th century fascism and communism to thrive. Hitler's head of propaganda, Goebbels, supplied subsidized radios to the Germans and used it to funnel propaganda into German households at the speed of light. Goebbels had this to say about it: "It would not have been possible for us to take power or to use it in the ways we have without the radio....It is no exaggeration to say that the German revolution, at least in the form it took, would have been impossible without the airplane and the radio. ...[Radio] reached the entire nation, regardless of class, standing, or religion. That was primarily the result of the tight centralization, the strong reporting, and the up-to-date nature of the German radio....Above all it is necessary to clearly centralize all radio activities, to place spiritual tasks ahead of technical ones,...to provide a clear worldview" While a decentralized internet may host extreme views in certain pockets, it also enables a diversity of viewpoints to be expressed, which more often than not serve to regulate those in power as well as inform those without.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    I used to think as you on this point, but the past couple of years have filled me with great doubt about how true this actually is.
    - chrisco255 3y ago
      About how true what is? What has happened on the internet in the past few years that is comparable to Nazi radio control and propaganda? Maybe the censurious social media apps booting off people with opposing opinions to liberal mainstream in collusion with intelligence agencies actively embedded in their organizations? But that just underscores the dangers of centralization. I suspect, based on your posturing in the reply, however, that you've been convinced that more control is necessary to counter extreme x or y wing viewpoints. If that be the case, then you would find great solace in the writings of Goebbels. I for one hold freedom of speech to be sancrosanct, and being a student of history will never waver from its defense.
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        Sorry, this part: > it also enables a diversity of viewpoints to be expressed, which more often than not serve to regulate those in power as well as inform those without. I have grown very doubtful about the notion that just having a diversity of viewpoints being expressed serves as a check to those in power, or that it serves to meaningfully inform people. It increasingly appears to me that the sheer quantity of different viewpoints does the opposite of those things. It generates an ocean of emotional noise that provides cover for those in power to do what they wish, and encourages people to only accept information and views that support the opinions they already have rather than meaningfully informing them. > I suspect, based on your posturing in the reply, however, that you've been convinced that more control is necessary to counter extreme x or y wing viewpoints Your suspicion could not be more mistaken. I'm baffled as to what led you to it in the first place. I'm just saying that it is increasingly looking to me like the internet (especially social media) has managed to remove a lot of the benefits of free speech. Saying that is far from saying "free speech is bad" or "speech needs to be regulated". It's saying that the mechanisms on the internet appear to amplify emotional or tribal, rather than rational or thought-out, responses. That sort of discourse has very little social upside. Further, I suspect that those mechanisms are intentionally like that, because they provide the easiest and most profitable method of monetizing.
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  Nor with the level of responsiveness and testing. You can see, in real-time, how well a comment went over, how quickly it spreads, and rapidly correlate it with specific demographics. The upvotes on each comment here are a simple version of that, but it functions just as easily with Likes, reddit updoots, re-tweets, etc. It's almost a skinner-box at this point

api 3y ago

Search for “satanic panic” for a TV era example.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
Go back. Search for "yellow journalism".
- JohnFen 3y ago
  "Remember the Maine!"
rchaud 3y ago
Satanic panic happened in the US, UK and that's it. The ills of the modern internet are globally distributed.

cassianoleal 3y ago

Yes but not at this speed and scale.

sundvor 3y ago
Yep, didn't spell that out - but indeed, this.
chrisco255 3y ago
Counter point to this, is that centralized mass media enabled early 20th century fascism and communism to thrive. Hitler's head of propaganda, Goebbels, supplied subsidized radios to the Germans and used it to funnel propaganda into German households at the speed of light. Goebbels had this to say about it: "It would not have been possible for us to take power or to use it in the ways we have without the radio....It is no exaggeration to say that the German revolution, at least in the form it took, would have been impossible without the airplane and the radio. ...[Radio] reached the entire nation, regardless of class, standing, or religion. That was primarily the result of the tight centralization, the strong reporting, and the up-to-date nature of the German radio....Above all it is necessary to clearly centralize all radio activities, to place spiritual tasks ahead of technical ones,...to provide a clear worldview" While a decentralized internet may host extreme views in certain pockets, it also enables a diversity of viewpoints to be expressed, which more often than not serve to regulate those in power as well as inform those without.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  I used to think as you on this point, but the past couple of years have filled me with great doubt about how true this actually is.
  - chrisco255 3y ago
    About how true what is? What has happened on the internet in the past few years that is comparable to Nazi radio control and propaganda? Maybe the censurious social media apps booting off people with opposing opinions to liberal mainstream in collusion with intelligence agencies actively embedded in their organizations? But that just underscores the dangers of centralization. I suspect, based on your posturing in the reply, however, that you've been convinced that more control is necessary to counter extreme x or y wing viewpoints. If that be the case, then you would find great solace in the writings of Goebbels. I for one hold freedom of speech to be sancrosanct, and being a student of history will never waver from its defense.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      Sorry, this part: > it also enables a diversity of viewpoints to be expressed, which more often than not serve to regulate those in power as well as inform those without. I have grown very doubtful about the notion that just having a diversity of viewpoints being expressed serves as a check to those in power, or that it serves to meaningfully inform people. It increasingly appears to me that the sheer quantity of different viewpoints does the opposite of those things. It generates an ocean of emotional noise that provides cover for those in power to do what they wish, and encourages people to only accept information and views that support the opinions they already have rather than meaningfully informing them. > I suspect, based on your posturing in the reply, however, that you've been convinced that more control is necessary to counter extreme x or y wing viewpoints Your suspicion could not be more mistaken. I'm baffled as to what led you to it in the first place. I'm just saying that it is increasingly looking to me like the internet (especially social media) has managed to remove a lot of the benefits of free speech. Saying that is far from saying "free speech is bad" or "speech needs to be regulated". It's saying that the mechanisms on the internet appear to amplify emotional or tribal, rather than rational or thought-out, responses. That sort of discourse has very little social upside. Further, I suspect that those mechanisms are intentionally like that, because they provide the easiest and most profitable method of monetizing.
red-iron-pine 3y ago
Nor with the level of responsiveness and testing. You can see, in real-time, how well a comment went over, how quickly it spreads, and rapidly correlate it with specific demographics. The upvotes on each comment here are a simple version of that, but it functions just as easily with Likes, reddit updoots, re-tweets, etc. It's almost a skinner-box at this point