4 ms·

You cannot separate the message from the medium. All of us are being exposed to the poorly studied effects of electromagnetic radiation and how that may effect

You cannot separate the message from the medium. All of us are being exposed to the poorly studied effects of electromagnetic radiation and how that may effect cognition. I am not taking one side or the other, but the effects of 5G EMFs are not being investigated.

mensetmanusman 3y ago
5G as it mostly exists is using the same frequency spectrum your wifi uses. Your microwave also uses wifi 2.4GHz to heat water because the power is many orders of magnitude higher.
- financltravsty 3y ago
  Electromagnetic fields interact with ion channels (primarily calcium) in the nerves. Microwaves have also been studied for psychiatric disturbance, and links and probable physical causes shown. 5G is just one issue. We’re constantly bombarded with electromagnetic radiation from various sources at various frequencies. It also becomes difficult to get a real control group, without numerous confounding lifestyle factors, because we’re all being exposed to it, so the real long-term effects will most likely not be known. The only thing gleamed is that an increase in 2.4Ghz EMFs leads to further psychological disturbance.
- 11235813213455 3y ago
  Living near a 5G antenna may be quite different than being next to a wifi router though, the power/amplitude are quite different
renegade-otter 3y ago
That is not what "message vs the medium" means. This refers to how the medium affects how we think. Books promote deep, linear thinking. TV made us shallow and visual. Social media took it to the next level, turning us all into helpless Pavlovian mutts. You can have the same message on all of those mediums, but only one is really effective.
- Podgajski 3y ago
  I was not using it it that context.
- drewcoo 3y ago
  > Books promote deep, linear thinking. TV made us shallow and visual. TV has scripts. Those are written. As far as depth, that really depends what you're reading/watching. I can find shallow books and deep TV. I can find both books and TV that get us to merely consume and also that get us to think, ask questions, talk about the content, and even dress up in costumes and go to conventions. I'll give you TV being visual. So are graphic novels, though. > That is not what "message vs the medium" means. This refers to how the medium affects how we think. Marshall McLuhan (Mr. "the medium is the massage") talked about the amount of engagement demanded by different media in Understanding Media, making claims similar to yours. Common criticisms of that stance are that it's oversimplified and distorted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding_Media#Critiques_of_Understanding_Media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding_Media#Critiques_...
  - 11235813213455 3y ago
    > TV has scripts. Those are written. it's so different, you have a limited time (→ stress), digital device (→ eye strain), limited space
  - renegade-otter 3y ago
    You don't read TV scripts - you watch them. I often take my eyes off a book to ponder and process a passage. Who pauses the TV to process a scene? The pace is dictated for you. The images flicker forward and your brain needs to quickly discard previous information to catch up with the new one.
  - voidhorse 3y ago
    Yes but TV is also, unless you're watching on HBO or another premium service, filled with interrupts. To me, this is the key difference between TV and other media, and it's the reason we tend to claim TV and social media "rot your brain" while books don't. Books generally demand prolonged, fixed attention to a single organized subject matter or narrative, and do not interrupt the subject matter or narrative with random interjections of completely unrelated content. This, however, is precisely the sort of interjection TV performs through the means of the advertisement. Social media in all its forms (twitter, facebook, instagram, et al) is essentially just TV if TV were only advertisements—a random collection of bite-sized, completely unrelated clips that bombard the viewer and gradually erode one's ability to devote continuous attention to a single subject matter. It's no wonder "influencers" are a dominant mode of advertising—they are the natural progression from TV ads. Social media already had the structure of the TV advertisement (a short burst of random information) all the big wigs had to do was convince influencers to start selling stuff directly. Worse, if you watch TV today, you likely have access to social media on a smart phone. No one wants to watch TV ads so the temptation to fill that space with social media consumption is constant, which leads you to basically fill ad time with even less related or relevant info that has the same level of fragmentation as TV ads but even more extreme. It's no wonder nobody can focus or remember anything when we've trained our brains to not only be used to but to actively expect random bursts of totally unrelated content at rapid rates. I've been getting worse and worse at being disciplined myself lately and at times quite literally feel like I've unintentionally given myself adhd.
anon23432343 3y ago
[flagged]

mensetmanusman 3y ago

5G as it mostly exists is using the same frequency spectrum your wifi uses. Your microwave also uses wifi 2.4GHz to heat water because the power is many orders of magnitude higher.

financltravsty 3y ago
Electromagnetic fields interact with ion channels (primarily calcium) in the nerves. Microwaves have also been studied for psychiatric disturbance, and links and probable physical causes shown. 5G is just one issue. We’re constantly bombarded with electromagnetic radiation from various sources at various frequencies. It also becomes difficult to get a real control group, without numerous confounding lifestyle factors, because we’re all being exposed to it, so the real long-term effects will most likely not be known. The only thing gleamed is that an increase in 2.4Ghz EMFs leads to further psychological disturbance.
11235813213455 3y ago
Living near a 5G antenna may be quite different than being next to a wifi router though, the power/amplitude are quite different

renegade-otter 3y ago

That is not what "message vs the medium" means. This refers to how the medium affects how we think. Books promote deep, linear thinking. TV made us shallow and visual. Social media took it to the next level, turning us all into helpless Pavlovian mutts. You can have the same message on all of those mediums, but only one is really effective.

Podgajski 3y ago
I was not using it it that context.
drewcoo 3y ago
> Books promote deep, linear thinking. TV made us shallow and visual. TV has scripts. Those are written. As far as depth, that really depends what you're reading/watching. I can find shallow books and deep TV. I can find both books and TV that get us to merely consume and also that get us to think, ask questions, talk about the content, and even dress up in costumes and go to conventions. I'll give you TV being visual. So are graphic novels, though. > That is not what "message vs the medium" means. This refers to how the medium affects how we think. Marshall McLuhan (Mr. "the medium is the massage") talked about the amount of engagement demanded by different media in Understanding Media, making claims similar to yours. Common criticisms of that stance are that it's oversimplified and distorted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding_Media#Critiques_of_Understanding_Media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding_Media#Critiques_...
- 11235813213455 3y ago
  > TV has scripts. Those are written. it's so different, you have a limited time (→ stress), digital device (→ eye strain), limited space
- renegade-otter 3y ago
  You don't read TV scripts - you watch them. I often take my eyes off a book to ponder and process a passage. Who pauses the TV to process a scene? The pace is dictated for you. The images flicker forward and your brain needs to quickly discard previous information to catch up with the new one.
- voidhorse 3y ago
  Yes but TV is also, unless you're watching on HBO or another premium service, filled with interrupts. To me, this is the key difference between TV and other media, and it's the reason we tend to claim TV and social media "rot your brain" while books don't. Books generally demand prolonged, fixed attention to a single organized subject matter or narrative, and do not interrupt the subject matter or narrative with random interjections of completely unrelated content. This, however, is precisely the sort of interjection TV performs through the means of the advertisement. Social media in all its forms (twitter, facebook, instagram, et al) is essentially just TV if TV were only advertisements—a random collection of bite-sized, completely unrelated clips that bombard the viewer and gradually erode one's ability to devote continuous attention to a single subject matter. It's no wonder "influencers" are a dominant mode of advertising—they are the natural progression from TV ads. Social media already had the structure of the TV advertisement (a short burst of random information) all the big wigs had to do was convince influencers to start selling stuff directly. Worse, if you watch TV today, you likely have access to social media on a smart phone. No one wants to watch TV ads so the temptation to fill that space with social media consumption is constant, which leads you to basically fill ad time with even less related or relevant info that has the same level of fragmentation as TV ads but even more extreme. It's no wonder nobody can focus or remember anything when we've trained our brains to not only be used to but to actively expect random bursts of totally unrelated content at rapid rates. I've been getting worse and worse at being disciplined myself lately and at times quite literally feel like I've unintentionally given myself adhd.

anon23432343 3y ago

[flagged]