Social Media is a funny turn of phrase. Any postmodern prefix to a long standing description places conditions on what we have known and what society established beforehand. For example, media had their editorials and letters pages, broadcasts have their phone ins and live discussions. However, the masses still got drip fed information, entertainment and education, as opposed to creating it, is too much of a good thing, well, too much? The Internet has opened a Pandora's box, and like Pandora, mainstream, Silicon Valley giants have tried to slam the box shut in a panic at what they released from this global, instant communication network they once cherished. Now the floodgates are open, no amount of logs will dam the flow, so perhaps those of us that are aware of this should leave them to drown trying to stem the deluge? Alternatively, should we?
The online marketplace is fractious, splintering into ever decreasing shards of echo chambers, a reflection, the vista of what lies behind and around you, cannot be seen in a broken fragment of glass. Google runs algorithms and works through binary, an ever-increasing series of noughts and zeros, yet it is trying to control the dissemination of information in a finite sense. π is round (3.14) and reverts into itself while being a number with infinite decimal places so always finds its way home, a poignant reminder of how the creators of online giants are establishment to the core. Larry Page, co-founder of Google, is the son of two computing professors and studied at Stanford, on Silicon Valley's doorstep, while Mark Zuckerberg attended Harvard, so it is predictable that they initially revert to type and function for The Man.
The internet grew on an open source ethos; it follows that when major social networks forget their remit to allow free communication, the social aspect of those two words comes into play. Establishment cohorts have slathered at the mouth in a fury over the recent political upheavals of the last year, so marched to war, engulfing the US in numerous partisan skirmishes recently. Which even boils over into the new social networks gaining traction. I recently shared a link to my YouTube channel on my Minds page (boosting the link), and someone commented that he thought people came to these new social networks (Gab, BitChute, Minds and so on) to escape the clutches of the old ones. Does such a sundering seem appealing to those who advocate it? If a wide splintering into groups becomes a reality, the internet becomes a virtual school cafeteria, with various cliques segregated from one another, or the assorted after school clubs.
Google, Facebook et al. wish for this easy portioning of off the internet because it then makes for an easy algorithm to condone those in line with their wishes and banish the others to a lower caste of a search result. Termites undermine foundations and weaken the apparent indefatigability of rigid structures, so it is for this reason that dissenting voices need to remain on these platforms, even while potentially gaining audiences and revenue elsewhere. Because only by staying and facing off against Goliath does David strike the fatal blow and whether or not our detractors know it, we do it for them too. Recall what lingered finally in the box and eventually got released by Pandora, hope.
#Politics, #MAGA, #Minds, #Antifa, #News, #Berkeley.
If you like my writing, please consider donating to my Patreon.
Or throw me a dollar via PayPal.
To earn tokens and access the decentralized web, select an option below
(It's easier than you think)