3 ms·
You assume this bidirectional communication is a benefit. I'm not so convinced. This permits the formation of echo chambers and allows people to nominate litera
by forgetfreeman 3y ago
You assume this bidirectional communication is a benefit. I'm not so convinced. This permits the formation of echo chambers and allows people to nominate literally anyone, regardless of their position or credentials, as an authority on literally any topic (see also: anti-vax moms). This represents an assault on society's ability to function at the most basic level, as it is increasingly difficult for individuals to agree on much of anything, as everyone's operating with a different set of information. Here's a thought experiment: you have a plumbing problem. A group of plumbers have examined the situation and are discussing how best to resolve the issue. In what way is this discussion meaningfully improved by adding a florist to the conversation?
- carlosjobim 3y agoI suggest you botanize a little in early and mid 20th century TV and radio broadcasts from around the world. You will find propaganda where the presenters are literally screaming like lunatics at the listener: Telling children to turn in their parents to the secret police, calling for war - and worse. That is what the majority of the population of the world had to listen to and watch. Mass media propaganda on the airwaves fueled the 20th century wars and worst crimes against humanity in history - with millions hypnotized under its spell. You can not compare that to online conversations that you find inconvenient. And if you didn't believe in bidirectional communication you wouldn't participate here, so I think you do believe in it.
- forgetfreeman 3y agoI can absolutely compare that to online conversations as they have lead to at least one attempt to overthrow the US government and have convinced an alarming minority of armed citizens that lizard people are real and pose a threat to the children of the world. That propaganda has always existed is not in question, what you fail to address in your response is the caustic effects on society caused by the proliferation of information sources.
- carlosjobim 3y agoI apologize, but if you think those things are comparable there is no way we can have any kind of fruitful conversation. Our values and perspectives are too different.
- forgetfreeman 3y agoIt's likely an issue of perspective. One of the benefits of being 50 years old is I've watched this entire process unwind in real time.