Yes but not at this speed and scale.
You can see, in real-time, how well a comment went over, how quickly it spreads, and rapidly correlate it with specific demographics.
The upvotes on each comment here are a simple version of that, but it functions just as easily with Likes, reddit updoots, re-tweets, etc.
It's almost a skinner-box at this point
"It would not have been possible for us to take power or to use it in the ways we have without the radio....It is no exaggeration to say that the German revolution, at least in the form it took, would have been impossible without the airplane and the radio. ...[Radio] reached the entire nation, regardless of class, standing, or religion. That was primarily the result of the tight centralization, the strong reporting, and the up-to-date nature of the German radio....Above all it is necessary to clearly centralize all radio activities, to place spiritual tasks ahead of technical ones,...to provide a clear worldview"
While a decentralized internet may host extreme views in certain pockets, it also enables a diversity of viewpoints to be expressed, which more often than not serve to regulate those in power as well as inform those without.
Maybe the censurious social media apps booting off people with opposing opinions to liberal mainstream in collusion with intelligence agencies actively embedded in their organizations? But that just underscores the dangers of centralization.
I suspect, based on your posturing in the reply, however, that you've been convinced that more control is necessary to counter extreme x or y wing viewpoints. If that be the case, then you would find great solace in the writings of Goebbels.
I for one hold freedom of speech to be sancrosanct, and being a student of history will never waver from its defense.
> it also enables a diversity of viewpoints to be expressed, which more often than not serve to regulate those in power as well as inform those without.
I have grown very doubtful about the notion that just having a diversity of viewpoints being expressed serves as a check to those in power, or that it serves to meaningfully inform people.
It increasingly appears to me that the sheer quantity of different viewpoints does the opposite of those things. It generates an ocean of emotional noise that provides cover for those in power to do what they wish, and encourages people to only accept information and views that support the opinions they already have rather than meaningfully informing them.
> I suspect, based on your posturing in the reply, however, that you've been convinced that more control is necessary to counter extreme x or y wing viewpoints
Your suspicion could not be more mistaken. I'm baffled as to what led you to it in the first place. I'm just saying that it is increasingly looking to me like the internet (especially social media) has managed to remove a lot of the benefits of free speech.
Saying that is far from saying "free speech is bad" or "speech needs to be regulated". It's saying that the mechanisms on the internet appear to amplify emotional or tribal, rather than rational or thought-out, responses. That sort of discourse has very little social upside.
Further, I suspect that those mechanisms are intentionally like that, because they provide the easiest and most profitable method of monetizing.
What you're describing is a balkanization of viewpoints by both consumers and producers rather than a real exposure to a diversity of them. To some extent that has occurred in modern society. It is certainly possible to fully live within your bubble and never be exposed to earnest criticism of your worldview. This trend, of course, pre-dates social media by many centuries.
Prior to the printing press and mass literacy, people would only ever be exposed to opinions within their immediate vicinity (and you would almost certainly never hear the opinions of ancient dead people such as Socrates or Locke). Even still, after those proliferated, there was quite a bit of friction and most people have always defaulted to adoption of local norms or customs without a second thought about correctness.
Mass communications such as TV and radio (along with nationally syndicated newspapers) enabled a handful of companies to gather an immense amount of control over the national conversation. They could almost mold an outcome in a presidential election on the basis of what questions they posed at a debate and how they made the candidates look on camera and what headlines they ran. From a certain perspective, it may have appeared as if the media was rather neutral. But the mass media itself became an embedded fixture of Washington and all the other major power structures that exist within the country. How could the media both act as an agent of common people and maintain a tight relationship with powerful insiders to get exclusive scoops and invitations to social functions? The internet enabled a critique of the media at the same scale as the media itself, in addition to those in power. A viral critique of ABC, NBC, Fox or CNN will often exceed the peak viewership of either of those outlets.
I think it's an important value worth protecting, even if there is a large bubble on both sides. There is some limited penetration and cross-pollination between the groups and it does filter through sometimes.
I honestly believe that freedom of speech and the willingness to engage in earnest debate of opposing ideas is as much a cultural value as it is a legal one. Without the cultural respect of such an idea, the legal value is not much use. If your university is filled with a student body that will loudly shoutdown and protest and cancel anyone with an opposite opinion from speaking there, it's a sign of a decline in that cultural value. I don't know what the solution to that is, it's certainly not an easy one, but there is no regulatory solution, and the internet isn't the source of the problem.
Maybe the only real defense is just the sum noise of a bunch of loud cranks like me desperately shouting into the ether that it's a value worth protecting.
> Your suspicion could not be more mistaken. I'm baffled as to what led you to it in the first place.
I jumped the gun based on past conversations I've had or read.
> Further, I suspect that those mechanisms are intentionally like that, because they provide the easiest and most profitable method of monetizing.
That may be true to some extent (although I suspect they're waning as people tune it out), but those mechanisms are inherent in all forms of mass media as well. Maybe the triopoly that existed between CBS, NBC, and ABC was comfortable enough and stable enough for those decades they had it, that they seemed to not be desperate for income and eyeballs in the same way that they are in today's cutthroat battle for attention. The modern situation is more of a throwback to the yellow journalism of William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer's day, which itself dates back to the founding of the country. Check the emotional noise of the political cartoons from the Civil War era, for example: https://www.history.com/news/abraham-lincoln-political-carto... https://digital.librarycompany.org/islandora/object/Islandor...
I guess my main argument is there is nothing new under the sun, although it feels different than whatever we had in the nostalgic era prior to this.
Granted, for things like Breitbart, one has to affirmatively opt-in.
Facebook and Twitter are a pretty damned big pocket.
By the way, threats to life, liberty, and property have always been illegal in this country. But no, I'm definitely not afraid or worried about some idle threats from basement dwelling neckbeards.
How much more important is it then, to protect free speech on the internet, when so much power and threats are wielded in far more subtle and insidious ways?