Appreciate the mention of Postman. McLuhan would be appropriate in that the medium definitely being the message be it gaming, chat, text , tik tok or otherwise.
I’m radical enough to call to amend the first amendment.
Now, free speech and expression is sacrosanct.
But our framers never imagined the scope and consequences of amplified and paid-for malinformative provocation. I call it “fee speech” and it has to do with personal responsibility.
I recognize chances of my revisionary vision are somewhere between fat and slim, but as one would prefer with free speech. Let it be open for discussion
You are far better placed than I to make this judgment. But I agree that this toxic use of social media is a powerful explanation or the divided country we live in. It is the reason I stay off of it as much as possible and never doomscrolling or do any scrolling at all. Yet I am sure confirmation bias still filters into my e-mail feeds. For me, that does NOT mean I should watch Fox for balance. They are not balance; do not even try to be. For the same reason I do not watch MSNBC. They make no effort at balance either, though they flatter my prejudices. It takes a terrific amount of work to discern realities in the media universe. And AI will make it worse, which is frightening I am inclined to think some kind of oversight is important, but very tricky to design. I don’t have an answer here; looking to people like you who have vastly greater knowledge and experience than I to help guide us.
Good luck with Goldilocks. Soon we'll learn from the school of hard knocks.
"And AI will make it worse." Abby, you beat me to it. Here's more on that from respected CNET:
https://www.cnet.com/home/internet/what-is-the-dead-internet-theory/?origin_address=www.youtube.com
Appreciate the mention of Postman. McLuhan would be appropriate in that the medium definitely being the message be it gaming, chat, text , tik tok or otherwise.
I’m radical enough to call to amend the first amendment.
Now, free speech and expression is sacrosanct.
But our framers never imagined the scope and consequences of amplified and paid-for malinformative provocation. I call it “fee speech” and it has to do with personal responsibility.
I recognize chances of my revisionary vision are somewhere between fat and slim, but as one would prefer with free speech. Let it be open for discussion
You are far better placed than I to make this judgment. But I agree that this toxic use of social media is a powerful explanation or the divided country we live in. It is the reason I stay off of it as much as possible and never doomscrolling or do any scrolling at all. Yet I am sure confirmation bias still filters into my e-mail feeds. For me, that does NOT mean I should watch Fox for balance. They are not balance; do not even try to be. For the same reason I do not watch MSNBC. They make no effort at balance either, though they flatter my prejudices. It takes a terrific amount of work to discern realities in the media universe. And AI will make it worse, which is frightening I am inclined to think some kind of oversight is important, but very tricky to design. I don’t have an answer here; looking to people like you who have vastly greater knowledge and experience than I to help guide us.
We are all manipulated by our need for confirmation bias!