Pretty much everything Mr. Sacks is writing about is true, of course. But should we be so surprised? We've seen this before. And it may have been worse in years past. Unfortunately for all capitalists on this forum (and that's everybody) all social media platforms ARE privately owned and can do pretty much what they want. Publish or not.…
Pretty much everything Mr. Sacks is writing about is true, of course. But should we be so surprised? We've seen this before. And it may have been worse in years past. Unfortunately for all capitalists on this forum (and that's everybody) all social media platforms ARE privately owned and can do pretty much what they want. Publish or not. Televise or not. Cancel or not. What's the difference between today's four or five mega social media platforms and yesteryear's three TV networks and ten national newspapers? Nothing. All privately owned and catering to millions of people who gave them the power to do so by buying the products advertised on their platforms.
Everything we saw or read then was carefully selected, severely edited, self censored, cleansed, and cleared to project a biased (or seemingly) unbiased lens to the news and stories of the day - all for the massive penetration of the audience they most wanted to reach. And such captive audiences we were! Not unlike the algorithms of today, more analogue then - but the results surprisingly the same. We read and watched, and kept on reading and watching. But tellingly, not contributing. And that's the difference.
David Sacks opines on the growing nature of cancellation and free speech suppression today and he is not wrong. But to try as a writer and get an article published in the media environment in the twentieth century was close to impossible unless your name was well known. It's much better today. As a reader trying to get a letter to the editor or comment even seen was pie in the sky. It's better today. Back then, try reading about an event you thought was important but was nowhere to be found in depth. Far superior today. Alternative print media emerged in the sixties and seventies as a response, but then became an ossified edifice in its own bias, where no one who didn't adhere to the slant of that particular publication need not apply - similar sometimes to this substack and others (but that's another story).
My point, however inarticulately drawn, is that even though First Amendment infringements sparked by mob fury we are living through in real time IS important and must be addressed, is our access to speaking our minds publicly any worse than before? I think not. I personally think it's better. More voices are being heard now than ever before - for better, and of course, for worse.
We’ll said Lee, and I agree. Just reading through these posts, then stepping away to fact check or read up on something a commenter said that I am not familiar with, without moving an inch from my chair (imagine how many trips to maybe a library we would have had to do when we were younger), in a nano-second, it is simply amazing. So this tool we have, like any tool, can be used for good or for evil, intended or unintended, informed or misinformed. It is a risk we take on this journey….
I'm thinkin.. Still thinkin.. But if You go by EFFECTS on society, I would say we're worse off. Yeah, anybody can say anything now. That's not all to the bad. OTOH, anybody can say ANYTHING, and there will always be a LOTTA people who will believe them, no matter if it has ANY bearing on the (relative) truth or not, right?
Pretty much everything Mr. Sacks is writing about is true, of course. But should we be so surprised? We've seen this before. And it may have been worse in years past. Unfortunately for all capitalists on this forum (and that's everybody) all social media platforms ARE privately owned and can do pretty much what they want. Publish or not. Televise or not. Cancel or not. What's the difference between today's four or five mega social media platforms and yesteryear's three TV networks and ten national newspapers? Nothing. All privately owned and catering to millions of people who gave them the power to do so by buying the products advertised on their platforms.
Everything we saw or read then was carefully selected, severely edited, self censored, cleansed, and cleared to project a biased (or seemingly) unbiased lens to the news and stories of the day - all for the massive penetration of the audience they most wanted to reach. And such captive audiences we were! Not unlike the algorithms of today, more analogue then - but the results surprisingly the same. We read and watched, and kept on reading and watching. But tellingly, not contributing. And that's the difference.
David Sacks opines on the growing nature of cancellation and free speech suppression today and he is not wrong. But to try as a writer and get an article published in the media environment in the twentieth century was close to impossible unless your name was well known. It's much better today. As a reader trying to get a letter to the editor or comment even seen was pie in the sky. It's better today. Back then, try reading about an event you thought was important but was nowhere to be found in depth. Far superior today. Alternative print media emerged in the sixties and seventies as a response, but then became an ossified edifice in its own bias, where no one who didn't adhere to the slant of that particular publication need not apply - similar sometimes to this substack and others (but that's another story).
My point, however inarticulately drawn, is that even though First Amendment infringements sparked by mob fury we are living through in real time IS important and must be addressed, is our access to speaking our minds publicly any worse than before? I think not. I personally think it's better. More voices are being heard now than ever before - for better, and of course, for worse.
We’ll said Lee, and I agree. Just reading through these posts, then stepping away to fact check or read up on something a commenter said that I am not familiar with, without moving an inch from my chair (imagine how many trips to maybe a library we would have had to do when we were younger), in a nano-second, it is simply amazing. So this tool we have, like any tool, can be used for good or for evil, intended or unintended, informed or misinformed. It is a risk we take on this journey….
at least in the library most of what you read was true , not some made up crap
I'm thinkin.. Still thinkin.. But if You go by EFFECTS on society, I would say we're worse off. Yeah, anybody can say anything now. That's not all to the bad. OTOH, anybody can say ANYTHING, and there will always be a LOTTA people who will believe them, no matter if it has ANY bearing on the (relative) truth or not, right?