And I hope it doesn't seem I'm arguing that there was some Golden Age of broadly informed intellectual discourse and dissemination happening. Our news - particularly in early television and the back half of 20th Century periodicals - was very tightly controlled out of political and cultural considerations.
With the Internet, there's just this really interesting paradox. It seems like the more information that becomes available, the narrower people's interests and consumption become. Part of it is tribalism and just plain human nature. I think actual education - engaging in critical thinking, interrogation of sources, and lateral reading - could go a way towards combating some of this.
But the Internet and social media in general just aren't set up for that. It just pushes content for people to consume, consume, consume. Doom scrolling, news notifications, algorithm suggestions.
And one big difference, I think, is that we're constantly being asked to react to what we're consuming. Instantly. In a virtual room full of people. If you were watching the nightly news or reading a newspaper, you weren't pushed to have an instant hot take or make any kind of response at all. You were chillin at home. You might make a comment about a story to a partner. Now there's a social currency to have a take - and to be seen having a take. On everything. Particularly among young people. Social media Presence (with that capital P) is valued. And not only do you have to have a take, you have to have the right take according to your social group. Because if you have the Wrong Opinion, you're about to get a 100 people jumping straight down your throat. Which incentivizes that insular conformity to confirmation bias.
Anyway. It's a fascinating topic I've been obsessed with for the past few years. I could go on all day (clearly).
= new reply since forum marked as read