It's not even centered on the US. I personally think the Internet just desensitized us all.

Reasons for that are easy to come up, imo chief among them being web2.0 (social media) and the ever increasing degree with which people exaggerate everything just to get a reaction.

Under that context, what's a little skirt chasing compared to what people usually say about the politicians? And how are you gonna remember he did something a few months ago, when so many more extreme things have happened since?

Really, I feel like social media will be considered the most destructive force to society in 20-50 yrs

▲

usefulcat 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

30 years ago in the US, there were a handful of major TV news outlets, and most people got their news from one of those and/or a newspaper, of which there were also a limited number.

The thing about those sources is that for the most part, it wasn't really economically viable to alienate half the population by leaning hard right or left. Any reduction in audience would likely translate to a commensurate reduction in advertising revenue.

Today, there are many, many sources of 'news' available in various forms around the internet, and of course people are free to choose what to pay attention to. This means it's entirely feasible for each source to cater to a particular viewpoint, even at the expense of definitely alienating half or more of the theoretical potential audience.

I theorize that the reason for this is that people have voted with their feet, balanced sources aren't as profitable and that's why there are fewer of them. It makes sense, a more balanced take on events is by definition not nearly as sensational, and almost always requires more mental effort on the part of the listener.

That by itself would probably be enough to explain the current situation, but on top of that, we also have the fact that many people receive the above mentioned information via algorithms designed to feed them more of what they already like (i.e. agree with) and nothing else, which of course only amplifies the effect further.

I have no idea how we get out of this situation (or if in fact we will), but in my mind it's not surprising at all.

	▲	panopticon 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		The cracks in the media were already visible 30 years ago. Conservative talk radio was taking off, people were beginning to call CNN "Clinton News Network", and Fox News was right around the corner. There was clearly an appetite—and a market—for partisan news. This was further fueled by the growth of national radio and TV networks that were less beholden to capturing local audiences. I think the internet just supercharged a change that was already well underway.

▲

Henchman21 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It’s almost like the correct action to take would be a Luddite-style wrench-in-the-works. Sabotage in service of humanity. And as an added bonus, think of all the electricity we’d get back!

	▲	johntarter 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Bring on the Bureau of Sabotage from Frank Herbert's ConSentiency universe books!

▲

Volker-E 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Agreed by all, but one: In 0 years.

▲

avhception 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It's like watching the public discourse devolve into ever more screaming and posturing. The only winning move is not to play.

Sometimes I find myself thinking about that experiment with the perfect rat paradise. The overpopulation got so bad, the normal social functions of the rats started to break down and the rats started acting like sociopaths. Sometimes, I think that's what we're doing to ourselves by exposing the average human to millions of voices through the internet.

Of course, ironically, I'm ignoring my own advice and still engage with the Internet. Though I mostly keep to HN and some IRC.