4 ms·

I believe we're beginning to see that happen, slowly. Younger folks tend to get their news from their friends on facebook, twitter, etc. Mainstream media source

I believe we're beginning to see that happen, slowly. Younger folks tend to get their news from their friends on facebook, twitter, etc. Mainstream media sources are toward the late stage of the conversation rather than the beginning and end. I don't know that it's necessarily improving things, in that a lot of Fox News style bullshit gets passed around in the form of photos with inaccurate captions, etc. But, "mainstream" it is not. Then again, the dialogue is still being controlled for enough of the population that the state line gets reproduced by a large number of people, possibly even the majority of people, in most instances where the state interests are at stake. Even seemingly without mainstream media, the message is well-controlled. Some recent examples of a large percentage of people seemingly buying into the state story without question that I found unnerving: "North Korea was definitely responsible for the attack on Sony" (despite many technically savvy people having serious questions about that), "Michael Brown was definitely in a rage and running into a hail of bullets toward an armed police officer when he was killed" (despite significant evidence to the contrary), "Eric Garner wouldn't have been killed if he had just obeyed the law; it had nothing to do with his race", "Tamir Rice pulled a gun on cops" (despite video contradicting this claim).

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- SwellJoe 12y ago
  "Your comment is impossible to address without essentially starting a flamewar, due to your decision to include several hot-button issues as examples." Is it? You seem to have succeeded in doing so, anyway. Which is good, as I think it's worth discussing. I called out situations where a state-approved message clearly exists, and that a reasonable person could find that state-approved message difficult to believe. "Suffice to say, Facebook and Twitter are mainstream. HN, too, is mainstream in tech circles. All of these conversations are at the very least influenced by other people." So, if social media is "mainstream media", then what do you suppose makes media not mainstream media? What does it take to not be mainstream? I don't necessarily agree with the comment I responded to that the "much more important" issue is mainstream media, though I think it is part of the equation that decides whether a democracy can succeed. But, I did want to point out that the control that NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, NYTimes, Washington Post, etc. have over the messaging that reaches most people is weakening. And, what is replacing it may not be superior, at least in the short term. I don't think you and I disagree (except perhaps on the value of mentioning "hot button" issues in this discussion).
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    Sigh... I wish HN would prevent replies to deleted comments. I deleted it, checked that there were no new replies, waited a few minutes, checked again, and now checked a couple hours later and sure enough, a reply has appeared. I deleted my comment because I don't like calling people out, especially when it comes to politics. We may disagree on the value of mentioning specific hot-button issues, and that's fine. I shouldn't have brought it up as a slight against you specifically. Sorry. I was also probably wrong that it was impossible to address the comment without starting a flamewar. The purpose of my comment was to point out that social media may be as controlled as more-mainstream media. It may be slightly harder to control or influence the conversation, but influence happens from Facebook to HN. HN's is preferable, but only because of the people piloting it. Why do you feel social media is any less shackled than mainstream media? In many ways, it's more influential, and therefore influencing social media acts as sort of a "force multiplier." If you convince just a few people to start convincing their friends, who convince their friends, etc, the effect is quite strong.
    - SwellJoe 12y ago
      "Why do you feel social media is any less shackled than mainstream media?" I don't. I said roughly the opposite of that; I've said that despite mainstream media losing its stranglehold on how people get their information, there still seems to be an effective method of controlling messaging. All I said is that while it does still seem to be controlled, it is not "mainstream media". Nonetheless, I said that it seems like I agree with you, generally speaking. I think maybe we've gotten off on the wrong foot in this conversation; I feel like you're hearing a much more argumentative tone than I believe I'm projecting. My disagreement (mostly) was with the comment I originally replied to, that asserted that policing, as it is practiced today, isn't a serious problem (which I disagree strongly with) and that mainstream media is the real problem (which I am somewhat in agreement with, but I think it's a more complex conversation than saying, "mainstream media is the problem"). Edit: And, on the "reply to deleted comment" thing, the comment existed when I wrote my comment. I believe I quoted enough context to continue the conversation. While I appreciate the sentiment of not starting flame wars, I didn't intend to start one with my comment; I was sincere in my desire to be concrete about what I was talking about when I say that social media can seemingly propagate an approved message as effectively as a well-behaved mainstream media.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

SwellJoe 12y ago
"Your comment is impossible to address without essentially starting a flamewar, due to your decision to include several hot-button issues as examples." Is it? You seem to have succeeded in doing so, anyway. Which is good, as I think it's worth discussing. I called out situations where a state-approved message clearly exists, and that a reasonable person could find that state-approved message difficult to believe. "Suffice to say, Facebook and Twitter are mainstream. HN, too, is mainstream in tech circles. All of these conversations are at the very least influenced by other people." So, if social media is "mainstream media", then what do you suppose makes media not mainstream media? What does it take to not be mainstream? I don't necessarily agree with the comment I responded to that the "much more important" issue is mainstream media, though I think it is part of the equation that decides whether a democracy can succeed. But, I did want to point out that the control that NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, NYTimes, Washington Post, etc. have over the messaging that reaches most people is weakening. And, what is replacing it may not be superior, at least in the short term. I don't think you and I disagree (except perhaps on the value of mentioning "hot button" issues in this discussion).
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  Sigh... I wish HN would prevent replies to deleted comments. I deleted it, checked that there were no new replies, waited a few minutes, checked again, and now checked a couple hours later and sure enough, a reply has appeared. I deleted my comment because I don't like calling people out, especially when it comes to politics. We may disagree on the value of mentioning specific hot-button issues, and that's fine. I shouldn't have brought it up as a slight against you specifically. Sorry. I was also probably wrong that it was impossible to address the comment without starting a flamewar. The purpose of my comment was to point out that social media may be as controlled as more-mainstream media. It may be slightly harder to control or influence the conversation, but influence happens from Facebook to HN. HN's is preferable, but only because of the people piloting it. Why do you feel social media is any less shackled than mainstream media? In many ways, it's more influential, and therefore influencing social media acts as sort of a "force multiplier." If you convince just a few people to start convincing their friends, who convince their friends, etc, the effect is quite strong.
  - SwellJoe 12y ago
    "Why do you feel social media is any less shackled than mainstream media?" I don't. I said roughly the opposite of that; I've said that despite mainstream media losing its stranglehold on how people get their information, there still seems to be an effective method of controlling messaging. All I said is that while it does still seem to be controlled, it is not "mainstream media". Nonetheless, I said that it seems like I agree with you, generally speaking. I think maybe we've gotten off on the wrong foot in this conversation; I feel like you're hearing a much more argumentative tone than I believe I'm projecting. My disagreement (mostly) was with the comment I originally replied to, that asserted that policing, as it is practiced today, isn't a serious problem (which I disagree strongly with) and that mainstream media is the real problem (which I am somewhat in agreement with, but I think it's a more complex conversation than saying, "mainstream media is the problem"). Edit: And, on the "reply to deleted comment" thing, the comment existed when I wrote my comment. I believe I quoted enough context to continue the conversation. While I appreciate the sentiment of not starting flame wars, I didn't intend to start one with my comment; I was sincere in my desire to be concrete about what I was talking about when I say that social media can seemingly propagate an approved message as effectively as a well-behaved mainstream media.