https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the...
And I've just argued why the reason is faulty, and we shouldn't hold it as true for modern media. I'd expect a counter-argument on that, not a reminder that it exists for a reason (as if I hadn't already considered it).
>the messenger has always shaped the message, even when it was a runner man
It's a matter of degree: the degree with which TV at the time of McLuhan, and now social media shape the message, is nothing like the degree previous "messengers" did it...
I really don't want to reitarate what people a lot smarter than me have written.
It's not different this time - the media have changed, but so have the Kings. No matter how many messengers they beheaded , the problems that Kings had did not go away. No matter how many people we deplatform, the problems of modern Democracy won't go away either. To me it seems people are going through a classic crisis of misattributing the blame: Modern political systems like democracy are ill-adapted for an increasingly individualistic, globalized world, and the problem won't go away after they regulate the media. (BTW i can't think of any case where shooting the messenger/media worked in the the long term in the past)
The real question is something like what are the implications of small-group level intimacy, but on a global scale. Just for starters - there are very many questions raised by this recent capability.
The emotional tenor of my relationship with my phone looks — and, I'm sure — very different from the way people relate to their faiths.
Facebook, YouTube, etc don't feel like 'movements' to me, like the article's author said. At least, I don't have the passion that a 'movement' seems to imply.
For me, smartphoning is an emotional gray zone. Most of the time I feel close to nothing. I use it to blot out my worries and deal with the mundanity of my life.
Which makes it more like actual opium, IMO.