has Internet made the political discourse dumber?

[DrZoidberg]

Is it just me getting older or has the political discourse, since the advent of the Internet become a lot dumber? It's like the stupid used to be insecure about what they knew. But now the stupid are aggressively confident.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that everything used to be rosy. Obviously most things are better now. But that's a question of slow evolution rather than political ideas getting smarter.

 

[bigfield]

The Internet provides everyone with a platform to broadcast their views that requires no effort and carries very little risk. In addition, anyone can find a sympathetic audience that agrees with their views.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The Internet provides everyone with a platform to broadcast their views that requires no effort and carries very little risk. In addition, anyone can find a sympathetic audience that agrees with their views.

So you're saying that the stupidity is the same. It's just that it's apparent today in a way that it wasn't before?

 

[bigfield]

The Internet provides everyone with a platform to broadcast their views that requires no effort and carries very little risk. In addition, anyone can find a sympathetic audience that agrees with their views.

So you're saying that the stupidity is the same. It's just that it's apparent today in a way that it wasn't before?

I wasn't old enough to participate in political discussion before the rise of the Internet.

However, even in the last ten years there have been several factors that have greatly increased the amount of dumb shit published online, far outstripping the growth of intelligent discourse: Mobile devices and broadband have increased accessibility, while social media and blogs provide a free and open platform.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So you're saying that the stupidity is the same. It's just that it's apparent today in a way that it wasn't before?

I wasn't old enough to participate in political discussion before the rise of the Internet.

However, even in the last ten years there have been several factors that have greatly increased the amount of dumb shit published online, far outstripping the growth of intelligent discourse: Mobile devices and broadband have increased accessibility, while social media and blogs provide a free and open platform.

Back before the Internet all media had their niche. Same as today. But the difference is that the fancier the niche the more complicated the language. It was a source of pride to subscribe to a publication to clever for the riff-raff. I don't see any hint of that today. Any moron can understand any publication today. Well... the words. They might not understand how the words are put together.

 

[Shadowy Man]

A bigger problem than the internet, though it could be related to it, is that the news media isn't adequately filtering out or shutting down the stupidity. In fact, they often seem to go along with it simply to enhance their ratings. If there were journalistic integrity, I think the impact of the stupid that is rampant on the internet would be less.

 

[credoconsolans]

The Internet provides everyone with a platform to broadcast their views that requires no effort and carries very little risk. In addition, anyone can find a sympathetic audience that agrees with their views.

So you're saying that the stupidity is the same. It's just that it's apparent today in a way that it wasn't before?

I think so.

Before the advent of the computer, you had to write to the newspaper editorials section and hope the newspapers printed your letters about your opinions. Obviously, the newspaper staff would toss any crazy, conspiracy ramblings and only post letters they thought well written and argued.

TV Newsrooms were the same. You could call, but you had to leave a message and hoped they called you back. They were under no obligation to air your views.

Everyday people had no other place to air their views that reached international levels. They could only bitch and complain and talk about government surveillance or being probed by aliens at the local barber shop or pub.

Now, every idiot's opinions can be heard across the nation and a generation is growing up in the US thinking that because everyone has an opinion and is free to air it, that no opinion can be wrong.

 

[bilby]

So you're saying that the stupidity is the same. It's just that it's apparent today in a way that it wasn't before?

I think so.

Before the advent of the computer, you had to write to the newspaper editorials section and hope the newspapers printed your letters about your opinions. Obviously, the newspaper staff would toss any crazy, conspiracy ramblings and only post letters they thought well written and argued.

TV Newsrooms were the same. You could call, but you had to leave a message and hoped they called you back. They were under no obligation to air your views.

Everyday people had no other place to air their views that reached international levels. They could only bitch and complain and talk about government surveillance or being probed by aliens at the local barber shop or pub.

Now, every idiot's opinions can be heard across the nation and a generation is growing up in the US thinking that because everyone has an opinion and is free to air it, that no opinion can be wrong.

I would have thought it would have the opposite effect; if every bullshit opinion is out there, surely that is good evidence that many opinions are utterly wrong.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I think the Internet is a double edged sword. It can really help broaden your horizons, but it also makes it easier to get in contact with those that believe what you do, and create a bubble of perpetual confirmation bias.

 

[rjh01]

When was the last time anyone making outrageous statements won a major party's nomination to run for President like Donald Trump has (or will do so)? I put it to you that is an example of how stupid America has become. Australia elected Tony Abbott not long ago. He was not much better than Donald Trump. Lucky for Australia, there are ways of removing a PM who becomes unelectable. It is really scary if Trump becomes President there are no easy ways to remove him in less than four years.

Is this because of the Internet or are there other factors involved?

 

[DrZoidberg]

So you're saying that the stupidity is the same. It's just that it's apparent today in a way that it wasn't before?

I think so.

Before the advent of the computer, you had to write to the newspaper editorials section and hope the newspapers printed your letters about your opinions. Obviously, the newspaper staff would toss any crazy, conspiracy ramblings and only post letters they thought well written and argued.

TV Newsrooms were the same. You could call, but you had to leave a message and hoped they called you back. They were under no obligation to air your views.

Everyday people had no other place to air their views that reached international levels. They could only bitch and complain and talk about government surveillance or being probed by aliens at the local barber shop or pub.

Now, every idiot's opinions can be heard across the nation and a generation is growing up in the US thinking that because everyone has an opinion and is free to air it, that no opinion can be wrong.

There is still a filter. Before it was the editors. Today it is attention. We pay attention to whoever already has attention from other's. I see a danger here. In the first instance the well educated middle class were arbiters of what went in. In the second case it can get really ugly. If enough people pay attention to wrong things we can get a very nasty public discourse.

 

[DrZoidberg]

A bigger problem than the internet, though it could be related to it, is that the news media isn't adequately filtering out or shutting down the stupidity. In fact, they often seem to go along with it simply to enhance their ratings. If there were journalistic integrity, I think the impact of the stupid that is rampant on the internet would be less.

The media has always been in competition. What kept people nice before wasn't gentlemanliness. It was the price of admission. It was expensive to distribute media which lessened the competition. So journalists felt less of a stress. They could afford high ideals. Today, anybody with a little ambition can start a publication. Among the most influential sources of media today are blogs. Just one dude, or a couple.

If you've got to niche harder to get noticed you will have to have extreme views. This is just applying a little logic. I personally don't think the public discourse is getting more extreme.

We're nowhere near the amount of turmoil today as we had during the cold war. Hard to tell if we compare the media from then and now.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think the Internet is a double edged sword. It can really help broaden your horizons, but it also makes it easier to get in contact with those that believe what you do, and create a bubble of perpetual confirmation bias.

But do you think that has changed the world? Do you think it's more extreme now?

 

[DrZoidberg]

When was the last time anyone making outrageous statements won a major party's nomination to run for President like Donald Trump has (or will do so)? I put it to you that is an example of how stupid America has become. Australia elected Tony Abbott not long ago. He was not much better than Donald Trump. Lucky for Australia, there are ways of removing a PM who becomes unelectable. It is really scary if Trump becomes President there are no easy ways to remove him in less than four years.

Is this because of the Internet or are there other factors involved?

Let's compare Trump to Reagan. Who's the more extreme? I don't think it's obvious

 

[ronburgundy]

So you're saying that the stupidity is the same. It's just that it's apparent today in a way that it wasn't before?

I think so.

.

Actual level of stupidity and the % of public rhetoric that is stupid are causally bidirectional. They enhance each other. Thus, if the internet has increased the % of rhetoric that is idiotic, then it almost certainly has also increased the % of people who are idiot and/or the % of idiotic beliefs, which would further increase the % of idiotic rhetoric and so on.

Environment shapes cognitive development, and a huge and increasing % of people spend most of their time in the environment of social media. BTW, I think boards like this are somewhat an exception to this rule. This environment is constructed to enable in-depth iterative discussions of the sort that are good for cognitive development and actually don't occur that often in schools or "real life". While the anonymity still enables some less-reasoned responses and personal attacks, I think that is balanced by the positives. In contrast, twitter is about the worst the internet has to offer in terms of fostering idiocy. Its character limit, hashtag use, and "follower" feature all foster the most shallow and vapid commentary on complex issues, where being cutesy and wittingly insulting are prized more than a considered nuanced opinion, which is nearly impossible in the allotted space (yes, you can put it in multiple tweets, but that is considered gauche).

 

[Shadowy Man]

Let's compare Trump to Reagan. Who's the more extreme? I don't think it's obvious

Hard to compare. Trump hasn't done anything as President yet. He's all talk right now. I don't know what Reagan said he would do when he was running for President and how extreme that sounded at the time.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think it has. In the past, you had to have some kind of qualification to even let other people know your views. TV shows wouldn't bring you onto their program and newspapers wouldn't publish your articles unless you had demonstrated some level of competency in regards to the subject matter being discussed. Now, any moron can go online and present an opinion and it can be very difficult for most to distinguish between the informed opinions of experts and the bullshit some moron pulled out of his ass.

That combines with the expansion in the number of potential media sources to get one's information from which, rather than providing a broader diversity of views, simply creates an echo chamber effect since most people tend to read the articles and opinions of those whom they already agree with and don't even become exposed to conflicting points of view, so a lot less thought is needed on any given subject as a result.

 

[ronburgundy]

I think it has. In the past, you had to have some kind of qualification to even let other people know your views. TV shows wouldn't bring you onto their program and newspapers wouldn't publish your articles unless you had demonstrated some level of competency in regards to the subject matter being discussed. Now, any moron can go online and present an opinion and it can be very difficult for most to distinguish between the informed opinions of experts and the bullshit some moron pulled out of his ass.

That combines with the expansion in the number of potential media sources to get one's information from which, rather than providing a broader diversity of views, simply creates an echo chamber effect since most people tend to read the articles and opinions of those whom they already agree with and don't even become exposed to conflicting points of view, so a lot less thought is needed on any given subject as a result.

The echo chamber is also enhanced by the fact that each news station's idea of "news" is often uncritically reporting/repeating what other blowhards on other stations have said. Even folks like John Stewart and Colbert often annoyed me with the high % of guests they had that were the same blowhards who dominate the media in general.
That was already a major increase in idiocy from print and network news to 24 hour cable "news". Now its even worse, because when the handful of blowhards aren't just quoting and interviewing each other, they are reading people's tweets.

 

[fromderinside]

I think it has. In the past, you had to have some kind of qualification to even let other people know your views. TV shows wouldn't bring you onto their program and newspapers wouldn't publish your articles unless you had demonstrated some level of competency in regards to the subject matter being discussed. Now, any moron can go online and present an opinion and it can be very difficult for most to distinguish between the informed opinions of experts and the bullshit some moron pulled out of his ass.

That combines with the expansion in the number of potential media sources to get one's information from which, rather than providing a broader diversity of views, simply creates an echo chamber effect since most people tend to read the articles and opinions of those whom they already agree with and don't even become exposed to conflicting points of view, so a lot less thought is needed on any given subject as a result.

So more people spread their 'thoughts' more widely. Probably not. For most one's thoughts are directed at those for which one has affinity. All that's really happened is we now see people like to here what they think repeated a lot. Yes its mostly inane, stupid, ill informed stuff. You know, kind of like that little echo chamber we walk around in called our friends. But there you go. More evidence of what wisdom exists in everyday life, very little.

I really don't know the number of repeaters has anything to do with information density or quality. Still, as 'on the street' comedy bits illustrate there isn't very much quality there anyway. So why would density impact knowledge or any other worth while aspect of information?

We were in the dark about whether Reagan was going to get demolished by Carter right up to about two weeks before the election. Boom. 48 or 49 states went Reagan. What followed was a 600 ship fleet, a bunch of aircraft, Reaganomics, lots of added debt, and down came that wall which was evident as far back as 1968.

So other than, shudder, another conservative justice, what is going to be so bad about Trump-onomics, debunking the Iraq war, a more or less secular presidency, resolving the southern border problem, a minor revolution in the middle class and taxes all toward more equity, the death of the Republican party as we know it today and a shift left in 2020?

The paints are already on the pallet. More brown, fewer republicans, younger electorate, more education, a rebuilt infrastructure to fix the middle class and less government ownership of lands in the west. Shudder, shudder, shudder.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I think the Internet is a double edged sword. It can really help broaden your horizons, but it also makes it easier to get in contact with those that believe what you do, and create a bubble of perpetual confirmation bias.

But do you think that has changed the world? Do you think it's more extreme now?

I'm not sure if the world is more extreme or simply brought out of the shadows. Politics seems more polarized than ever to me, but I didn't live through another turbulent time, the '60's.