I don't intend this to be a flame if it comes off that way; your last post just had me thinking a little bit.

Wouldn't the democratization of publication and journalism and so-forth risk the splintering of a diverse, though (barely) cohesive democratic union? With so many narratives, would they not appeal to smaller sects of people, who could in turn create myriad and wholly incongruous worldviews with those found in the next town over, figuratively speaking? Of course, the essential opposite could be equally likely, or even more so, as you ostensibly believe. Perhaps these people in charge of the authorities do not lack faith in the average citizen, but are unwilling to gamble? I am not an expert and I make no challenge to your assertions. Just got me thinking a bit is all. — Asked by gladlybeyond

I definitely see where you’re coming from, but as long as there’s a finite number of decisions people can make with information, we’ll see grouping.

I guess the question is in what authorities are unwilling to gamble - are they unwilling to gamble that people given incorrect information, or differing information will be unable to move forward logically, or are they unwilling to gamble that a consequence of many different voices is the potential loss of their authority?

Thanks for raising the issue, I very much appreciate the feedback and perspective.

24 notes

Show

  1. attentionindustry posted this

Blog comments powered by Disqus