| > I disagree that social media is the problem but even if we assume it is, then what? Just to be clear, I didn't mean to say social media is "a problem" or "the problem", but rather the catalyst of the modern status quo. I should have worded my original post better. Specifically, social media (and I suppose the internet in large) allowed us to much easily share information in a way that sidesteps those institutions. This allows us to easily share information that's negative about those institutions, whereas before we could not. Thus, it was the catalyst towards the modern avalanche of distrust towards once-venerated institutions. > then what > Ban social media? Should we make a government review board for all social media posts to make sure people don't think the bad things? > Even if social media were the problem, I'd start thinking about other places to solve it because social media isn't going anywhere. I generally agree with what you're saying, I don't have an answer. Pandora's box is open, and from now on it seems impossible to have a big monolithic organization and not have a high level of public distrust (both grassroots and organized by that organizations' opposition). Ironically you even see this effect for large tech companies. There was a time when people really trusted and loved brands like Google, Apple, Amazon, even Facebook. Nowadays it feels hopeless naive, and the newest cohorts of top startups are often viewed even worse (the Ubers of the world) I certainly hope the answer isn't an authoritarian control of discourse, because that's probably the only thing worse than having institutions of low trust. But what is the solution? Heck if I know. |