It’s more than just spreading rumors. Rumors have been spread for millenia, and democracy made it through OK.
The difference is that the social media companies have a much broader reach than any sort of media congglamerate that came before it, and value engagement and attention above everything else. They understand that rumors generate attention, and their algorithmic feeds are designed to put whatever will generate more engagement in front of you.
I wonder how much damage media titans like Hearst would have done today if they built their empires now, on top of social media feeds, instead of in print 125 years ago…
Rumors have been spreading for a millennium, and democracy has been okay in the sense that democracy has only been a thing relatively recently. Social media didn’t exist 1,000 years ago as a means to spread rumors at scale to hundreds of millions of people.
Something that was said decades ago is that every village used to have an idiot. Now every idiot has a village.
And even more so now, the efforts of one person to sway public opinion can push lies to hundreds of millions of people, which is something that has been impossible up till now.
I wonder how much damage media titans like Hearst would have done today if they built their empires now, on top of social media feeds, instead of in print 125 years ago…
Is there really much of a difference besides the speed of communication? Social media is the top medium that people get their news from, just like newspapers from 125 years ago, and just like TV (Fox News) from 40 years ago . Have enough control over that medium and you have control over the information flow, enough to generate your own propaganda and have a real meaningful impact.
Besides that fact that social media can post information in a matter of minutes vs. the daily cycle of newspapers, I don’t really see the difference. Social media isn’t really special in that regard. If anything, the control has shifted more towards the public. But, people are still lacking in critical thinking skills and continue to idolize famous people as a proxy for trustworthiness. Hence, they still fall for rumors and disinformation, especially if some famous dumbass said it.
It’s not just the speed of communication, it’s the scale of communication. Someone can light up thousands of bot accounts to push a particular message in minutes and reach millions of people in the next hour, subtly manipulating them based on mass amounts of data available to individually target people vulnerable to your specific campaign
Whereas in the days of newspapers, you had to get it in the newspaper. You had to get it printed, and that newspaper would only reach so many people in so much time due to the literal physical limitations of time and distance. Many of the people that would be reached may not be interested in or vulnerable to what you are trying to state.
The newspaper equivalent of today is a newspaper that is made as a special case for each person it’s being delivered to, specifically tailored to take advantage of their political leanings, their fears, their ignorance, and so on and so forth.
It’s more than just spreading rumors. Rumors have been spread for millenia, and democracy made it through OK.
The difference is that the social media companies have a much broader reach than any sort of media congglamerate that came before it, and value engagement and attention above everything else. They understand that rumors generate attention, and their algorithmic feeds are designed to put whatever will generate more engagement in front of you.
I wonder how much damage media titans like Hearst would have done today if they built their empires now, on top of social media feeds, instead of in print 125 years ago…
Rumors have been spreading for a millennium, and democracy has been okay in the sense that democracy has only been a thing relatively recently. Social media didn’t exist 1,000 years ago as a means to spread rumors at scale to hundreds of millions of people.
Something that was said decades ago is that every village used to have an idiot. Now every idiot has a village.
And even more so now, the efforts of one person to sway public opinion can push lies to hundreds of millions of people, which is something that has been impossible up till now.
Is there really much of a difference besides the speed of communication? Social media is the top medium that people get their news from, just like newspapers from 125 years ago, and just like TV (Fox News) from 40 years ago . Have enough control over that medium and you have control over the information flow, enough to generate your own propaganda and have a real meaningful impact.
Besides that fact that social media can post information in a matter of minutes vs. the daily cycle of newspapers, I don’t really see the difference. Social media isn’t really special in that regard. If anything, the control has shifted more towards the public. But, people are still lacking in critical thinking skills and continue to idolize famous people as a proxy for trustworthiness. Hence, they still fall for rumors and disinformation, especially if some famous dumbass said it.
It’s not just the speed of communication, it’s the scale of communication. Someone can light up thousands of bot accounts to push a particular message in minutes and reach millions of people in the next hour, subtly manipulating them based on mass amounts of data available to individually target people vulnerable to your specific campaign
Whereas in the days of newspapers, you had to get it in the newspaper. You had to get it printed, and that newspaper would only reach so many people in so much time due to the literal physical limitations of time and distance. Many of the people that would be reached may not be interested in or vulnerable to what you are trying to state.
The newspaper equivalent of today is a newspaper that is made as a special case for each person it’s being delivered to, specifically tailored to take advantage of their political leanings, their fears, their ignorance, and so on and so forth.