Great thesis. When communication costs the communicator considerable time and resources, they will perform it with much more concern for the good. Lies aren't usually worth the investment. When it's produced cheaply; rashness, recklessness, deceit, and calumny are all easy temptations.
It seems it was only ever the powerful who could afford to make the information and thus control the narrative. Dissonant voices must be heard for truth to be truth, for truth should never be afraid of lies because lies can never kill it, but only make it look stronger.
I see your point. Mass Media means anyone can share their views. The problem is that it takes much longer for counter arguments to be constructed and printed. This allows the old and misinformation to settle in people's minds. This cannot be stopped, but people can be trained to be skeptical and wait for more information before forming their opinions.
,,Mass Media means anyone can share their views. The problem is that it takes much longer for counter arguments to be constructed..." This is called Gish gallop
you sound like a leftist when you use the word 'misinformation' it's just one of their current buzzterms to vilify that which challenges their doctrines and asinine narratives
The age of ignorance has given way to the age of knowledge. But JOURNALISM was something created to be what it is today: a greater tool for mental manipulation of the masses.
Lmao. As if that's a "bad thing". Technology is inevitable neitherways. And prots made the bible accessible to the public thanks to printing press so that the masses can see the lies Catholic church spews.
Simple: over time, people and societies develop habits and norms around the flow of information that stabilize relationships and promote flourishing. When their is sudden change in the flow of information, these habits and norms no longer address the changed reality, relationships breakdown, and societies head toward crisis. Eventually, however, new habits and norms are developed that stabilize relationship and promote flourishing. The same basic pattern repeats itself, going back well before the printing press.
The thing is that unfortunately the Middle East basically banned the printing press, citing some of the issues you raised and various other problems that were observed or theorized. However, history has shown that to be a massive mistake because, even though the printing press did lead to some chaos and an overthrow of the old European society, it also allowed you guys to get waaaaaay ahead of us in science and technology (and empire) while we (as a result) went from being top of the world to massively falling behind in just a few hundred years.
I don't see an issue with that because the result was a much higher standard in the public discourse. Having public debates between guys who were steeped in the Classics and read Latin and Ancient Greek like newspapers of course results in a much higher level of public thought than a bunch of ignorant feral children screeching on Twitter. And it wasn't only the rich because poor kids like Ben Franklin or the son of a farmer like John Adams were able to get their opinions out there via the printing press, but obviously there was a certain standard that was expected to be met.
I know what you are trying to argue, but realistically, how do you prevent bad people from using the tools how they want? The only real solution is to not let the tech develop, not seek it out in the first place. But once it's out, there's no turning back or no 'return to monke'.
While Controversial, let's Not Exaggerated on the Impacts it had on Historic Events and Lead-Ups to Events and Focus more on how Destabilizing it has been these Past Decades! Especially in the Current Early 2020s.
@@gratefulguy4130Don't get me Wrong! I'm Staunchly in Favour of Seeing the Past as the Main Source to Preserve the Present and Aren't looking for to Underestimate the Impacts the Printing Technologies had Caused during Events, before Events, and after Events in Inflicting a Huge Reaction from the Educated to Mobilize against Others but the Point I tried to Make at my Comment is that Proto-Mass Media back then Compared to Now is Incompatible and Often actually Unreliable to the Sparks that Empowered Communities cause Today.
Great thesis. When communication costs the communicator considerable time and resources, they will perform it with much more concern for the good. Lies aren't usually worth the investment. When it's produced cheaply; rashness, recklessness, deceit, and calumny are all easy temptations.
John Courtney Murray, Time/Life and the American Proposition: How the CIA's Doctrinal Warfare Program Changed the Catholic Church - David Wemhoff
It seems it was only ever the powerful who could afford to make the information and thus control the narrative. Dissonant voices must be heard for truth to be truth, for truth should never be afraid of lies because lies can never kill it, but only make it look stronger.
I see your point. Mass Media means anyone can share their views. The problem is that it takes much longer for counter arguments to be constructed and printed. This allows the old and misinformation to settle in people's minds. This cannot be stopped, but people can be trained to be skeptical and wait for more information before forming their opinions.
,,Mass Media means anyone can share their views. The problem is that it takes much longer for counter arguments to be constructed..."
This is called Gish gallop
you sound like a leftist when you use the word 'misinformation' it's just one of their current buzzterms to vilify that which challenges their doctrines and asinine narratives
We are actually becoming ever more centralized and homogenous through mass and social media.
Maybe, maybe not.
And for the worst reasons.
Freud: It's a good thing we can't read each other's minds or we would all hate each other.
Mass media: Hold my beer.
This played out in gilligans island
freud was a psychopath and his nephew was largely instrumental for making mass propaganda the powerful boot it is today
The powers that be have done everything they can to demonize reading, learning, and the pursuit of free information ever since.
The age of ignorance has given way to the age of knowledge. But JOURNALISM was something created to be what it is today: a greater tool for mental manipulation of the masses.
Just after they achieved what they wanted through spread of information mind you.
The medium is the message.
Very well put. This should be well understood.
This is informative and very interesting!
Protestantism is a result of technological changes. I always find this interesting.
Lmao. As if that's a "bad thing". Technology is inevitable neitherways. And prots made the bible accessible to the public thanks to printing press so that the masses can see the lies Catholic church spews.
Great video, though of contributing to your channel by simply commenting.
Fascinating. Read the excellent book, Technopoly, by Neil Postman
I read it. It is outstanding.
The first word that was revealed in the Quran was Ikra.........means:
Read
Satan forced Muhammad to write down what he was told or else he would continue to torture him and possess him.
The similarity with social networks, and soon I think, specialized LLM, is so blatant
Already*
Simple: over time, people and societies develop habits and norms around the flow of information that stabilize relationships and promote flourishing. When their is sudden change in the flow of information, these habits and norms no longer address the changed reality, relationships breakdown, and societies head toward crisis. Eventually, however, new habits and norms are developed that stabilize relationship and promote flourishing. The same basic pattern repeats itself, going back well before the printing press.
The thing is that unfortunately the Middle East basically banned the printing press, citing some of the issues you raised and various other problems that were observed or theorized.
However, history has shown that to be a massive mistake because, even though the printing press did lead to some chaos and an overthrow of the old European society, it also allowed you guys to get waaaaaay ahead of us in science and technology (and empire) while we (as a result) went from being top of the world to massively falling behind in just a few hundred years.
To be real, only the rich were able to spread their opinions fast with the printing press. Normal people without rich backup had no chance.
I don't see an issue with that because the result was a much higher standard in the public discourse.
Having public debates between guys who were steeped in the Classics and read Latin and Ancient Greek like newspapers of course results in a much higher level of public thought than a bunch of ignorant feral children screeching on Twitter.
And it wasn't only the rich because poor kids like Ben Franklin or the son of a farmer like John Adams were able to get their opinions out there via the printing press, but obviously there was a certain standard that was expected to be met.
Keep your books
Yep, I have a full set of encyclopedias and I just acquired a 1952 set of Great Books of The Western World.
Social media is modern mass media akin to gutenberg printing press.
... opportunity costs separate the men from the boys ....
There is still gemes to be found on yt
Did you purposely misspell revolution on you splash. Rfvolution?
The printing press and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
this is EACTLY what I need for my class this week. I just wish his voice was more emotive.
Stop blaming the machines for the irresponsibility of the people who use them.
It's not blame; it's observation.
I've observed the same thing.
Machines/technology literaly are the problem and have always been.
Technology democratizes culture.
@@firelight1539 that's the problem democracy is cringe the majority are stupid
I know what you are trying to argue, but realistically, how do you prevent bad people from using the tools how they want? The only real solution is to not let the tech develop, not seek it out in the first place. But once it's out, there's no turning back or no 'return to monke'.
This
😢
While Controversial, let's Not Exaggerated on the Impacts it had on Historic Events and Lead-Ups to Events and Focus more on how Destabilizing it has been these Past Decades! Especially in the Current Early 2020s.
You can't understand the present without understanding the past.
And honestly the issue today is quite different than you probably think
@@gratefulguy4130Don't get me Wrong! I'm Staunchly in Favour of Seeing the Past as the Main Source to Preserve the Present and Aren't looking for to Underestimate the Impacts the Printing Technologies had Caused during Events, before Events, and after Events in Inflicting a Huge Reaction from the Educated to Mobilize against Others but the Point I tried to Make at my Comment is that Proto-Mass Media back then Compared to Now is Incompatible and Often actually Unreliable to the Sparks that Empowered Communities cause Today.