When Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press, people were sceptical. Wouldn’t books cause an overload of information, make it easier to spread propaganda and … ruin society? 150 years later written newspaper was made, similar arguments were made against the medium. Later, books and a free press has long held an important role to sustain democracy. Countries like China are restricting media to prevent the effect is has on people.
Jeff Jarvis made this point in the IQ2U debate about whether or not social media is good for democracy (#153). Social media is now getting a bit more than 10 years old. Ever since it came around, we’ve had #metoo, #blacklivesmatter but also Trump and Brexit. Is social media to blame for the latter? Or is it too early to say?
I’ve heard other talk about the rise of populism without mentioning social media; in general people tend to vote for strong leaders whenever they are uncertain about the future. Now, with looming threat the world ending, jobs getting taken over by machines, it is no wonder that strong resolute leaders are making their way forward in politics. Are people getting more simple or are we just afraid?
As far as comparing books and social media, Franklin Foer (in the same debate) makes a good point that there is a stark difference; we devour books, but our cell phone devours us (paraphrased). We check our phones in the morning, in the night and when we go to the toilet. We get content based on what platforms think we like. The WSJ has a “blue” and a “red” feed which will give you different versions for some political cases, the blue feed will tell you how Trump is faltering, the red will say how he is improving the country. Is this public education and information, or is it cosmetics upon the truth?
0 comments