3 ms·

But was everyone carrying around a pocket telescreen to broadcast their innermost thoughts (or pictures of their meal) at any moment, and to read the same from

But was everyone carrying around a pocket telescreen to broadcast their innermost thoughts (or pictures of their meal) at any moment, and to read the same from all of their friends, strangers, celebrities? Was your average middle aged office worker checking their facebook (insert social networking site here) during their spare time between tasks? Did you have digital online contact with your Grandmother/aunt/etc (as is commonly the case for many now)? These are just a couple of examples of how much more heavily the internet is utilized by large groups of people today rather than in 2004. We're much more connected today than 9 years ago.

betterunix 13y ago
We are more connected but the vast majority of people are using that new connectivity to gossip about other people, post photos from parties, and tell people what sort of restaurants they like. People who were not particularly interested in discussing current events are still not discussing current events. At best what you can point to are people clicking "like" when they see a negative comment about the NSA, if even that much. Those people who do want to discuss current events are no more empowered to do so now than they were in the 90s. Take a look at where the discussions are happening: forums (including websites like Hacker News), mailing lists, and personal websites / blogs.
- ItendToDisagree 13y ago
  I think your final statement is demonstratably false. There are many more ways to discuss things and to promote your interests/views. That is sort of the whole reason crowd funding and the like came about and function. There is much greater interconnection between any given individual than I think you care to admit. Yes the vast majority of social networking is pretty vapid... But to use even a ridiculous example of such, like the Kony memes of 2012, you can see what I'm talking about. The meme became a joke, but brought a lot of attention to something that likely would have just disappeared, or never even have entered the 'public' consciousness otherwise. The Travyon Martin situation (regardless of your stance on it), also became a much larger issue than it likely would have without endless tweets, shares, jokes, memes, etc.

betterunix 13y ago

We are more connected but the vast majority of people are using that new connectivity to gossip about other people, post photos from parties, and tell people what sort of restaurants they like. People who were not particularly interested in discussing current events are still not discussing current events. At best what you can point to are people clicking "like" when they see a negative comment about the NSA, if even that much. Those people who do want to discuss current events are no more empowered to do so now than they were in the 90s. Take a look at where the discussions are happening: forums (including websites like Hacker News), mailing lists, and personal websites / blogs.

ItendToDisagree 13y ago
I think your final statement is demonstratably false. There are many more ways to discuss things and to promote your interests/views. That is sort of the whole reason crowd funding and the like came about and function. There is much greater interconnection between any given individual than I think you care to admit. Yes the vast majority of social networking is pretty vapid... But to use even a ridiculous example of such, like the Kony memes of 2012, you can see what I'm talking about. The meme became a joke, but brought a lot of attention to something that likely would have just disappeared, or never even have entered the 'public' consciousness otherwise. The Travyon Martin situation (regardless of your stance on it), also became a much larger issue than it likely would have without endless tweets, shares, jokes, memes, etc.