3 ms·
I think the point of the article is that even if you try to ignore those sites, mass media leaks through everywhere. The web really hasn't displaced mass media
by vannevar 14y ago
I think the point of the article is that even if you try to ignore those sites, mass media leaks through everywhere. The web really hasn't displaced mass media at all, but merely become an extension of it.
- taeric 14y agoBut the implication is that this is somehow a new thing. There is plenty of stuff on the internet that is not seen by the vast majority of folks out there. I would actually include this Palmer stuff. Sure, it is well known in certain circles. In particular, the TED crowd along with Gaiman fans. Outside if that, though.... Even the kickstarter that rose 1 million only had upwards of 25k donors, from the stats I recall. Hardly a majority of the internet.
- vannevar 14y agoSure, in fact I'd go as far as to say that most of the content available on the Internet has been seen by nobody. I would paraphrase the author's point as, hey, we've been told that the Internet provides a new way for an artist to communicate directly with her fans, and so it does; but it doesn't change the fact that even a message intended only for one audience will nonetheless be judged by another. Consider the recent sorority girl email that went viral, or the myriad of leaked sexts. The same connectedness that makes it easy to create targeted messages makes it just as easy to rebroadcast them to everyone. If the sorority girl had sent a letter 40 years ago, someone might've made copies and circulated them on campus but that's as far as it would've gone. The profanity would have prevented the mass media from picking it up, and while she might still have been fired, she would hardly have been the subject of worldwide discussion.