Are we as hypnotised by internetmedia as boomers are by tv? What are the differences?

[Trump's Chosen]

It's easy to see how mass media tv and radio is a hypnosis for boomers, how it created a kind of centralised culture.

But what is easy to see in others can be hard to see in oneself. Do we experience the same with internetmedia?
We being gen x and milennials.

I encounter the idea often where someone thinks they see through the bullshit, but then still have just only the next level of propaganda as their worldview. An when you have a deep conversation why it's because Y person on X podcast says so (few admit this).

Of course having a 5 newsstations centralised intake or a distributed mix and match intake with userinput is different, but is it different enough?

 

[Divine right to rule]

No, I wouldn't say it is the same.

All you have to do is to compare internet discourse to TV discourse.
The discourse on TV is very obvious in its political bias and extremely narrow ideological view.
The internet is automatically superior to this, just because it is worldwide and full with people from countries with rather different political and philosophical backgrounds, adding an outsiders perspective, instead just the local political one.

There is also the option of audience disagreement through comments, ratings and community notes, while on TV, even if you disagree, you have no way to voice that outside of not consuming anymore.

The internet is also much more personality-based than network-based, which I think is a good thing.
Most people would rather trust in the integrity of an individual over the integrity of an organization.

 

[Lone MacReady II]

Nah it's not the same, can be, but I'd argue many people just think everyone is lying to them, which many do. So long as they navigate the net with the understanding of what propaganda actually is, where the Internet spawned from (ARPAnet), and how Kike'd everything has gotten since the late 90s/early 2000s wild west internet - They should be fine... so long as they also touch grass.

 

[Yamaha YM2612]

They're the same thing. Same people, same intent

 

[Schwarzwald]

To a lesser extent, absolutely. It is somewhat mitigated by varying voices covering topics differently and encouraging one's own research.

The bigger culprit with the Internet is cults of personality where large groups of people worship an individual and adopt their opinions as if they were their own. They forgive all their flaws and shortcomings non-critically. It is a massive area of concern, and one many people don't realize they've fallen into. It's less common with television as there is less exposure to a particular individual, while Internet personalities are often constantly available to their audience.

 

[Trump's Chosen]

The internet is also much more personality-based than network-based, which I think is a good thing.
Most people would rather trust in the integrity of an individual over the integrity of an organization.

Is the increased trust justified? Isn't that exactly one of the big risks?

 

[Divine right to rule]

Is the increased trust justified? Isn't that exactly one of the big risks?

If it isn't there is a huge amount of people who will release articles and videos a few hours later, calling the individual out.
Then they either respond to the controversy, and a discussion is had, or they lose support.
Internet-commentary almost needs no resources, everyone can break into it without funding, making it much more open and transparent than traditional media, there is huge competition keeping them audience-focused and the chance of an opinion-cartel forming is near zero if the platforms themselves stay neutral.

 

[Pelican Bones]

Yes

You are not immune to propaganda

 

[The Gene Genie]

Not always, but nowadays I would say that the Internet Media has become emblematic, now more than ever, of a simulacra/hyperreality in the sense of that one French philosopher that I can't remember the name of but had a decent treatise on this (which he promptly discarded after falling for the 9/11 meme job.) There is, fundamentally, no difference between your ability to discern truth from Internet Media now, in this moment, as it was from the Television Media of old. It's not just about "giving voices to opposing ideologies" but actually depicting the truth as it is. The truth isn't just what you agree with or aligns with your ideology or worldview, and to me that means that the Internet Media, today, is not any better than 5 Channels of Nothing 50 years ago.

Consider this: Twitter/X. While on one hand there is a great proliferation of "user-based content" and dynamic live reporting from "people on the ground" as it were, things relating to news stories of national and international interest quickly become filtered by the algorithm and by the bought-in (blue checkmarkers) to push people into the paradigm, that is to say: into the hyperreality.

I would actually say that the Internet Media is MORE dangerous with this hypnotic, anti-reality power than Television Media of Old was, because the Internet Media has managed to bring people who were critical of the whole thing and skeptical of it all back onto the plantation under a false sense of enlightenment.

 

[skykiii]

So I'm not sure if I'm on the same wavelength as everyone else, but...

With the internet, I find its a lot easier to "vegetate"--that is, spend hours wasting time just watching stupid videos on youtube until before you know it, the day is over. I hate to admit it but most of my life for years has been like this.

And a part of that is once one video ends, you can just click on another.

TV was never like that. If there was a string of shows I liked to watch, sure, but the thing is they would eventually end. I remember as a kid, once the afternoon cartoons were over, I would go away and do something else until sundown. There was no "being glued to TV for eight hours" despite what some scaremongering PSAs claimed.

Heck.... even when I try specifically to stick to movies and TV shows that have, you know, actual stories... I find I have a hard time doing it.

 

[ToroidalBoat]

The internet can be more interactive, with more reading. TV is more a passive medium, and it has been said one can be put in a different and more suggestible state of mind. And the internet has not yet been completely centralized. Not everything on it is sanitized and censored -- not everything is that corporate-approved The Narrative™ either.

 

[Fek]

It's the same theater, just seen through different (and sometimes far more involved/intense) lenses. If something is placed before you which is designed to draw your attention away from your own personal journey (or..call it the journey of the self, the path one walks, etc), then agreeing to partake in the farce automatically grants some part of you over to what you're now focused on to whatever degree. This gets amplified when feelings/emotions are involved, especially fear and hatred. The methods employed are more sophisticated and arguably much more effective, but the goal remains the same.

Spoiler: Expanded Thoughts

Perhaps this may of some help in figuring out one's own potential hypnotic state or severity:

Do you currently follow what the news puts before you? Perhaps political goings on?​

Do you find yourself drawn to outrage bait or charades which leave you crestfallen in some way?​

Are you, upon reflection, finding that your thoughts are largely implanted by others?​

Perhaps you find yourself in an overall negative state of mind day in, day out?​

If you can honestly answer those questions, then perhaps continue a step further:

Which are you weighting more heavily - the choices you make for yourself, or the choices being made for you by so-called authority figures?​

Why do you feel so attracted to outrage or misery?​

Who allowed those negative emotions to take root? What do they have to do with you personally?​

​

I would suggest that most would, if answering honestly, have a decent wake-up call by the end of this personal reflection.

 

[YautjaWeeb]

Boomers are indoctrinated and entertained a lot more by a lot less. They have no intake filter other than their immense personal grievances that are essentially the only thing identifiable about each of their individual personalities. Their TV upbringing with no influence whatsoever from the world outside of American executives and polticiains gave each of them a completely homogenous planned upbring which is why they are all so similar.

Everyone else after it takes a fair bit more effort from more directions almost like a combined arms approach. End result is shattered attention spans and things like politics invading just about everything for "the right messaging".

in the sense of that one French philosopher that I can't remember the name of but had a decent treatise on this (which he promptly discarded after falling for the 9/11 meme job.)

Jean Baudrillard didn't discard anything and he called the Wachowski brothers faggots who did not understand even the basics of his material after they went running to him for approval for 'Matrix'. If you want 9/11 explained from the outside its 'early' Zizek.

I would actually say that the Internet Media is MORE dangerous with this hypnotic, anti-reality power than Television Media of Old was, because the Internet Media has managed to bring people who were critical of the whole thing and skeptical of it all back onto the plantation under a false sense of enlightenment.

I think its actually like history, everything with humans is just made up and changed most of the time. If not from inception, sometime later. All humans do is lie at an astonishing rate. You could say nearly the only reason we speak is for lying. Our body language conveys everything else for as long as humans have existed.

Philosophically what does it matter if the content in newer mediums are all fake and gay and the only difference from old mediums is those can be found in a nice smelling old book?

 

[Masturbator]

it is important to account that internet is more akin to a free library than penal camp that is television - you are more likey to find what you exactly seek than what you exactly are meant to unlike the tv which at best can play bad cop good cop game

that said for all the poison internet has its still the only instance of actually unlimited speech as there's no effective consequences for wrongthink of any kind (unless you post on social networks or retarded enough to spill your information) and unlike actual irl meetups it is physically impossible to keep bead on everyone if their activity actually opposes current game contrary to cops wanting to have a plant in every group that is more less above ten people

 

[Angry Alt Right Nerd]

Yes, people are perfectly capable of forming cults without influence from government or rich people.

 

[Großmann]

I would have said no prior to Musically and Vines. Since those dropped, it’s pushed the big websites into creating media ecosystems that thrive on never-ending content that automatically cycles for the viewer in short bursts that rewards the brain’s desire for “novel” experiences.

While TV generations had content auto-fed to them, the content was broken up by three minute commercial segments that give the viewer time to assess whether or not to keep watching. On top of that, the program will eventually come to an end in 30 minutes to an hour and give you another opportunity to decide to stop. Finally, TV generations had to eventually leave the house for work, school, or other activities, limiting the window of time where TV may be viewed.

With this in mind, Gen Y and Z (Gen X is not, as a group, on the internet in the same way) have it much worse because the smartphone is with you about everywhere you go, meaning that an individual’s contact time with media is much higher than ever before and more insidious because websites curate the content in such a manner that it becomes addictive.

 

[⋖ cørdion ⋗]

Someone described to me facebook messenger as "the boomer's social media". Suddenly it makes sense why one statement can result in 20 questions; they've got nothing else going on. I WISH they'd doomscroll instead of fucking texting me 20 times about a "hey im going to this place, just fyi".

Still, we're at least slowly going to a place where opting out of smartphones and social media isnt considered Teddy krazuzzy tier shit.

 

[FunPosting101]

Depends on what part of the internet you're talking about. A lot of social media is fairly hypnotizing, yes. Other parts of the internet though? Not really.

 

[Spud]

No I get his argument. I watched Escape the Fate's "Situations" music video once during my youth and it impacted me for both the better and worse.

 

[Sewer Level 9]

Yes. It's a new version of what's fundamentally the same thing - the spectacle is now an interactive "walk-through" exhibit instead of a coliseum in-the-round. The TV Man now talks directly to (You) through the proxy of a fed, bot, shill, fool, or other kind of plant, and it now requires a trained eye to distinguish him from an actual divine being as he slowly adapts to the setback of decentralization.