Comment by cobbzilla | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cobbzilla | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" [1] is a great torchbearer for McLuhan's POV, bringing it solidly into the era of one-way video media (cable TV, VHS, etc) that dominated 80s/90s public discourse.

The internet, though, is kind of a different beast than radio or TV because it is so interactive. It's not just 1-way, 2-way, or many-to-many; it's all those things simultaneously. I'd love any recommendations on books/authors that pick up the torch from McLuhan and Postman, and try to cast some light on what "the medium is the message(/metaphor)" means in the hyper-connected age.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death

edit: Just a thought, it's not only the interactivity that makes the internet unique, it's also its infinite flexibility: it can emulate print, radio, TV; but it can also invent its own versions of those media (podcasts, youtube, twitch, etc). It can invent entirely new kinds of media too: VR, AR, etc. So maybe the internet is a kind of "meta-media", which makes the analysis much more difficult; but promises some real gems of insight - if any can be found.

> It's not just 1-way, 2-way, or many-to-many; it's all those things simultaneously.

Hmm. But isn't the internet/new media heavily balanced towards the 1-way communication model ? Does sharing, re-sharing and commenting in the void qualify as 2-way or m2m or is it just an amplifier ? The potential is here but does it really solidify into existence for the vast majority or is just for the vocal groups (NGO, journalists, lobbyists, etc.) ?

I have in mind the net delusion [0] and the submarine model [1].

[0] https://www.amazon.com/Net-Delusion-Dark-Internet-Freedom/dp... [1] http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html

there is no question that old-school broadcast media is 1-to-many. it's physically impossible to send a signal upstream in those models (doesn't stop me from yelling at the TV, but I do know it's futile). we can quibble about how much the internet is 1:1 vs 1:N vs N:M, but the fact that we even ask these questions makes the internet a qualitatively different kind of media.

as an aside, what are we doing right here, right now? HN uses the internet as a print medium. As a blog it is 1:N, and as a discussion forum is N:M. So yeah, it's complex :)

I think there's only a small percentage of the population who have original and interesting things to say. Internet does enable those people to reach an audience which was much harder earlier without institutional support.

The internet has the ability to be a multi-dimensional "meta" medium. But for the vast majority of people it's a one-way, social media echo chamber feed to scroll through.

Go out in public and watch how people interact with their phones. Especially in developing countries who have had massive technological change thrust into their lives in under a generation.

McLuhan's vision was much more descriptive of today's wold* than his. I don't think people read his essay carefully enough.

* Also today's world, but wold is a nice word that doesn't get out enough so it stays.

My recommendation doesn't carry into the digital space but does explore the history and constructs of early a/v propoganda. The author was the twelfth Librarian of the United States Congress and a critical historian. Considering the infotainment complex that has been created by cable news networks and the metamorphisis via the net his observations are more pertinent today than when first published in 1962.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/159979.The_Image

Reply on news.ycombinator.com