On forums and blogs, people used to have detailed back-and-forth arguments. Can a democratic society survive if we don’t even bother arguing about ideas anymore?

But I’ve come to wonder whether the only thing worse than arguing on the internet is not arguing on the internet. Something happened over time, and I think it coincided with the rise of Donald Trump and the emergence of Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok as the social media platforms of choice. A lot of people just stopped bothering to defend their ideas against people who disagree with them. The arguments dried up.

…

The transition from forums and blogs to “social media” and video has disfavored longform writing, and it is a transition that has been engineered by massive companies. With the rise of AI, which allows people to avoid formulating thoughts altogether and let the machines do it for them, it seems to only be getting worse.

This is a difficult phenomenon to write about, because I’m not quite sure how to prove it or quantify it (suggestions welcome), but I know there has been a shift here, because I’ve experienced it firsthand over my 18 years as an online writer. I became so used to defending my ideas against critics, and then gradually the critics stopped writing criticism.

  • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    6·
    1 day ago

    which allows people to avoid formulating thoughts altogether and let the machines do it for them, it seems to only be getting worse.

    This is so eloquently and succinctly put.

    I think that’s it. That’s what most people ultimately want, the ultimate convenience of non-thinking, of non-existence. They are so offended by the “terminally online” and the “informed” who write their “endless paragraphs” (2 sentences that take less than 5s to read).

    Especially the brainwashed boomers turning out for the far-right in droves who actually use AI like this or fall for obvious misinformation for no reason other than they like the sound of it. They killed the world for this.

    • rayyy@piefed.socialEnglish
      1·
      8 hours ago

      Especially the brainwashed boomers

      Nice example of a non-thinking generalization. Have an up-vote punk.

      • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        2·
        6 hours ago

        I’m referencing Marjorie Taylor Greene. https://people.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-says-maga-was-all-lie-and-claims-trump-is-only-serving-big-big-donors-11898049

        Not a phrase I thought I’d ever say but it rings that much louder when it’s someone who was part of this whole taking advantage.

        But it’s also not a comment I make unthinkingly, let’s look at the voting intention tracker in the UK:

        https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/voting-intention

        If you select ages 18-24, the Green party (actual leftwing party) is in the lead the far-right party (Reform) is far behind. If you select ages 25-49, then Labour is in the lead, they are just average run of the mill conservatives.

        So everyone between the ages of 18-49, that’s a span of 32 years is at least in more or less agreement that we should not have the far-right in government.

        Now let’s take a look at 50-64 A majority by a large margin are voting for Reform UK. This also tracks for 65+ by an even larger margin.

        No other category demonstrates a split like this, not by class, not by sex, not by social grade, not by anything - age is the only predictor that is this reliable and obvious.

        So yes, statistically speaking boomers are brainwashed. Or if you think voting for the far-right doesn’t mean they are brainwashed, then that’s fine, I’m also willing to accept that they are fully cognizant of what they are doing, but that would mean that they are just plain evil

        Young people are suffering everywhere at the hands of a gerontocratic tyranny they practically institute serfdom by already taking everything they have via rent. It needs to end and it needs to end soon.

  • calliope@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    1·
    1 day ago

    I believe that most of the knowledge worth having is found in books, and book critics have a vital function in introducing the public to important books

    I agree with the first part, but I have never once read a book review by a newspaper critic. I never find them of value, I’d rather read almost anyone else’s review.

    I read a lot of books, but this type of book critic is not as valuable as the author claims.