This somewhat assumes that the purpose of democracy is to create stability and institutional trust at the possible expense of freedom.
Social media creates terrible disorder compared to what you can get by ABC, CBS, and NBC giving you roughly the same nightly news and fostering agreement among the masses. At that time, getting into the mass media business was costly. There wasn't too much competition if you wanted that kind of reach.
But now, reach is very different. Gone are the days when reach was restricted to the upper crust. Now, some YouTuber can gain a following that rivals one of these esteemed institutions.
So I'll ask the big question. Does society need gatekeepers to control who has reach in order to remain stable? You can easily argue that it still does, but they're people who tweak algorithms or work at trust & safety departments. And if society needs these gatekeepers, what should their qualifications be?
Social media creates terrible disorder compared to what you can get by ABC, CBS, and NBC giving you roughly the same nightly news and fostering agreement among the masses. At that time, getting into the mass media business was costly. There wasn't too much competition if you wanted that kind of reach.
But now, reach is very different. Gone are the days when reach was restricted to the upper crust. Now, some YouTuber can gain a following that rivals one of these esteemed institutions.
So I'll ask the big question. Does society need gatekeepers to control who has reach in order to remain stable? You can easily argue that it still does, but they're people who tweak algorithms or work at trust & safety departments. And if society needs these gatekeepers, what should their qualifications be?