I'm not saying he's entirely wrong, but a lot of what he's saying sounds very much like how TV was once described.
Calling attention to Neil Postman’s __Amusing Ourselves to Death__ is the usual rejoinder to a statement like this. But, Daniel J. Boorstin’s __The Image__[1][2], published in 1962, just about perfectly presages the outcomes of 2016 – 2017 vis-à-vis social media; I cannot commend it enough.
(N.B television (especially with news shows) is also both a form of, and antecedent to what we call social media.)
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Image-Guide-Pseudo-Events-America/dp/...
[2] http://www.transparencynow.com/boor.htm, (Disclaimer: I don't know anything about this site, having just discovered it a few seconds ago, but it provides a nice summary of the book).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Image:_A_Guide_to_Pseudo-e...
Now the average adult in the US watches 5 hours a day, 35 hours a week.
Were they wrong?
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/average-american-watch...
I used to be in the Nielsen TV surveys, for the manual data entry (IIRC they had a thing that attached to your TV but I wasn't in the automated survey portion). They had some tiny reward program with a dollar showing up in the mail every once in a while. I believe the average person is probably a little like me and too lazy to fill in every single thing they watch and self conscious sometimes, too, about self reporting too much. The manual diary was pretty laborious.
Even with books, it's all in how you intepret it. If you just read the story without giving it any thought, it's no better than watching "mindless TV". I just think there is probably a positive correlation between people that are willing to think critically about a topic and those who are willing to put in the additional effort of reading vs watching.
To put it another way, if you knew nothing of painting or any the history behind it, the Mona Lisa would likely be indistinguishable to you from some random photo on someone's Facebook.
I will admit that some forms of media are easier to mindlessly consume than others. I am just sick of seeing the "X is only for stupid/lazy/ignorant people" (where X is TV, internet, videogames, etc.)
tl;dr you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
Edit: to get back to the topic of Facebook, I think the format of social media is not the cause of the issue, but I definitely see a problem in people having high exposure to insular opinions. Mostly because there seems to be a large number of people who only use Facebook as their source of information. Like any tool, you can use it for good or bad.
Suppose we were to say, “Apple pie is in itself neither good nor bad; it is the way it is used that determines its value.” Or, “The smallpox virus is in itself neither good nor bad; it is the way it is used that determines their value.”
- Marshall McLuhan
Sure, we can imagine a theoretical beneficial use for almost any object. However, we shouldn't be blind to the fact that certain things tend to cause more harm, even when we try to prevent it.
Note, I'm not saying how exactly we should respond to more dangerous objects, I'm just saying we should not falsely claim that they aren't dangerous.
The above also confounds what I'm saying with some predetermination that some are born to become addicts.
The medium is the message.
Edit: I'm not saying the medium has zero influence on the message. I'm just pointing out that a) the medium does not dictate the message, and b) effectively "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
Looking at it this way makes a lot of sense.
He did not contend that the content was meaningless, or lacked a message. He did, however, quip throughout his life that focusing on the content is putting the cart before the horse.
> Typically, the characteristics that come to define a generation appear gradually, and along a continuum. [...] I had grown accustomed to line graphs of trends that looked like modest hills and valleys. Then I began studying Athena’s generation. Around 2012, I noticed abrupt shifts in teen behaviors and emotional states. The gentle slopes of the line graphs became steep mountains and sheer cliffs, and many of the distinctive characteristics of the Millennial generation began to disappear. In all my analyses of generational data—some reaching back to the 1930s—I had never seen anything like it.
Apparently it was excerpted from the author's book. I wonder if the book is good.
Yes, cable TV expanded TV beyond the "big networks" (CBS/NBC/ABC etc.) but the democratization of news, reporting and information spreading is entirely new.
I mean, HN, Reddit and what other social sites do the same thing, and you could still go where you want without relying on internet“channels” or google searches, but most people don’t.
Echo chambers are a dangerous thing that people should be educated about early and often.
Good point, I would say however that you create/add the sources first (by following), Facebook then guides what you see, based on your behavior.
Facebook doesn't decide upon, and broadcast a pre-determined message - they simply work off of your preferences, and try to give you more of what you want (not need) with a healthy side of advertising.
Now, when TV is part of our life we're used to that brainwashing and most people don't notice it any more.
also tv is a one way broadcasting system when facebook is like 2 way system ...
Facebook is intense. I catch myself getting caught in the feedback loops all the time now, it's very potent. It's different than video games, because those are time-gated too (loading times, takes time to find a multiplayer match, takes time to build your base or whatever). But with facebook, you can keep scrolling and scrolling. And you can quickly skip parts of videos that are uninteresting.