How is it any different? Are you serious? For the overwhelming majority of our time on this planet communications were limited to word of mouth over geographically limited areas. Now it is trivial for any form of bullshit to spread worldwide in minutes. The stakes have changed.

This change came already with the invention of radio. We have a century of radio and TV propaganda of the absolutely vilest kind behind us already. At least now there is an exchange with the instant communications, not only one-way.

It did not already come as you say. We are in a new era. It is now very easy to target specific people over a wide geographic region and to do so cheaply. It is easy for bad actors to hone in on those susceptible to the false beliefs they peddle. Hence the rise of morons who won’t vaccinate their children. I’ve read that around 50 percent of the posts online are bot driven. Soon that percentage will be a lot bigger. This is an era of easy, cheap, targeted messaging. It’s an era where we will mostly exist in information bubbles whose messages cater to what we are most susceptible to being influenced by.

All of these arguments center on how different now is from “past” versions of transformative technologies and ignore that to past versions of people a radio show that you could tune into that was broadcast nationally likely felt as transformative as a network that connects the globe.

You can’t measure the difference in progress from a modern vantage point.

Once upon a time large numbers of people thought we were actively being invaded by aliens because of a radio broadcast that wasn’t even deliberate manipulation. Nevertheless, we made it through.

Everything is relative.

Divisions in the Napoleonic wars were far more lethal than a Roman legion. A division today is many times more lethal than a Napoleonics division. A similar advancement has occurred within the realm of dissemination of propaganda but at a much shorter timeframe. In my opinion humanity is not prepared to deal with the social and psychological effects of this era of cheap, targeted, mass communication. I hope I am wrong.

Once upon a time large numbers of people thought we were actively being invaded by aliens because of a radio broadcast that wasn’t even deliberate manipulation. Nevertheless, we made it through.

This probably isn’t true. This story has persisted for decades based off of newspaper articles from decades ago. It illustrates the power of false information dissemination on readers provided that information is packaged in the right way.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/war-of-the-worlds/

There's no evidence I'm aware of that supports the notion that we are capable, as a species, of weathering the social and psychological effects of the modern communications era and a growing body of evidence that suggest we aren't. Given human psychology around in-group dynamics it seems likely we never will be on anything other than evolutionary time scales.

Indeed. We did not evolve to adequately deal with this new reality.

Anything you think we could do to help people deal with it or in your view is this settled?

I have no idea. As AI generated content becomes more prevalent and as bots become a huge percentage of online comments I hope it will lead to people leaving the internet. For the most part I think the dead internet theory will become a reality. I hope humans will develop coping mechanisms.

We're talking about lizard-brain deep subconscious human behavior here. That's not really something that lends itself to being tinkered with idly. So this seems pretty settled to me. I'm prepared to alter my view if new information comes to light.

Broadcast radio has been a cheap way to target everyone over a wide geographic region. With catastrophic consequences seen in the massive wars in all continents that were fueled by radio propaganda.

I much prefer living with today's polarization and people disagreeing on minor things like those you mentioned, than in the age of one-way broadcasts where there is no arguing and no other perspective at all.

Do you really? Because at least in the US we are approaching an inflection point where a third of the country decides to kill a different third while the middle third starves to death or dies of disease. I question the notion that adding pundits, industry shills, and random-ass suburbanite influencers to the conversation balances that equation.

You assume this bidirectional communication is a benefit. I'm not so convinced. This permits the formation of echo chambers and allows people to nominate literally anyone, regardless of their position or credentials, as an authority on literally any topic (see also: anti-vax moms). This represents an assault on society's ability to function at the most basic level, as it is increasingly difficult for individuals to agree on much of anything, as everyone's operating with a different set of information. Here's a thought experiment: you have a plumbing problem. A group of plumbers have examined the situation and are discussing how best to resolve the issue. In what way is this discussion meaningfully improved by adding a florist to the conversation?

I suggest you botanize a little in early and mid 20th century TV and radio broadcasts from around the world. You will find propaganda where the presenters are literally screaming like lunatics at the listener: Telling children to turn in their parents to the secret police, calling for war - and worse. That is what the majority of the population of the world had to listen to and watch. Mass media propaganda on the airwaves fueled the 20th century wars and worst crimes against humanity in history - with millions hypnotized under its spell.

You can not compare that to online conversations that you find inconvenient. And if you didn't believe in bidirectional communication you wouldn't participate here, so I think you do believe in it.

I can absolutely compare that to online conversations as they have lead to at least one attempt to overthrow the US government and have convinced an alarming minority of armed citizens that lizard people are real and pose a threat to the children of the world. That propaganda has always existed is not in question, what you fail to address in your response is the caustic effects on society caused by the proliferation of information sources.

I apologize, but if you think those things are comparable there is no way we can have any kind of fruitful conversation. Our values and perspectives are too different.

It's likely an issue of perspective. One of the benefits of being 50 years old is I've watched this entire process unwind in real time.