1970s People React To Social Media

[Zyobot]

It's no secret that within the last few decades, technology has advanced on a fundamental and far-reaching level. With the most iconic signs of this being computers of all shapes and sizes and the digital media that they help promulgate, it's worth wondering how people from a generation earlier would react to its unexpected inception. And aside from search engines or the various websites that make up the lifeblood of this experience, social media in particular has become a cornerstone of today's technological experience.

So, as an idea inspired by this AH.com thread, how would 1970s people react to modern social-media platforms showing up on their TV sets? Perhaps they receive a new joystick-like control plugged into the actual TV, which functions like a modern computer mouse so that they can actually navigate the sites that show up, whether they're video-sharing services like YouTube or generic posting platforms like Twitter. Moreover, governments are prevented from censoring the associated content or removing the new feature that ASB has bestowed upon TV sets everywhere.

With that all said, what happens next?

Thank you in advance,
Zyobot

[Zyobot]

To offer my own thoughts, I think that even once people understand what's going on, they'd still need a bit to grapple with the very concept of a the World Wide Web. The sheer speed at which information travels and how devices that'd seem straight out of Star Trek proliferate in the twenty-first century will probably be the most obvious tendencies at first. But there's also how online discourse shapes everything ranging from pop culture to politics in the twenty-first century. The 24/7 news cycle, the ability of people and organizations to communicate on their own terms rather than rely on traditional outlets to make their pitch to audiences, and tech platforms becoming battlegrounds between competing opinions and political persuasions would be quite a adjustment for 1970s people still reeling from their disbelief. In fact, the notion of social media being used to coordinate huge movements like the Arab Spring would likely mystify the Average Joe, as well as rather unsettle a political class spearheaded by the GI and Silent Generations, who don't share the same values or technical aptitude of the uptimer Boomer political class.

Even discounting the cultural and political dimensions of digitization, the sheer breadth and growth of content that also includes material deemed too obscene and/or dangerous by downtimer audiences should also generate a wave of social upheaval. Not to mention rampant copyright infringement and liberal interpretations of Fair Use that the modern Web is known for, which publishers and other vanguards of traditional media would rail and lobby against as soon as they grasp what this internet doohickey is and why it matters so much. Maybe we could see Article 13-style attempts to legislate Web content within nations' own territories, even if it's not possible anytime soon, for better or worse.

On the more economic side of things, there's also rampant e-commerce reminiscent of 'TV-shopping' depicted in downtimer catalogues about the future. Online shopping and delivery services like Amazon have been brought back for the ride, and places like YouTube can become potential revenue-generators for content creators. Not to mention more direct ways of making money like Patreon, which has since become a noted facilitator of the modern 'gig economy' that digital technology makes possible.

Oh, and that's all without covering the reactions of more authoritarian, censorship-heavy nations like Soviet Russia. In which case, I think there's a plethora of ways that this scenario could go wrong for them.

[stevep]

   Zyobot ,

   One other issue might be of copywrite.  If something is out of copywrite in 2020 but still in in 1970 and the up-timers bring it back can the down-times claim breach of copywrite or demand some payment.  Similarly the other way.  If there's something the down-timers can duplicate, possibly in terms of a say 1990's tech that is brought back I can see some people and government's claiming they can do so because its never been copy-written in 1970, or possibly even trying to copy-write it themselves.

  Similarly with down-timers who are probably children in 1970 but later become famous for some reason.  For instance can Steven Spielberg, who is actually 24 in 1970, claim revenues on any of his future films that are brought back? 

  The sheer flood of information that is possible with modern communications and the nature of much of it, including the ability to spread hate material and totally false insinuations is going to be a matter of great concern for not just leading figures but also the general population even in the more liberal parts of the world.  I can see definite attempts to restrict use of such media and licence usage of some aspects, albeit that is likely to fail in the longer run.  Also with the huge difference in many social values.

  Many people are going to be embarrassed by details of what they allegedly did in the future and going to be the old [to us] issue of whether someone can be blamed for actions they haven't done and may never do?  Some careers will end and others will take different paths.  On the good side a number of events might be avoided or the damage reduced.  Thinking of bad decisions that affect people's health and welfare plus issues like storms, earthquakes and the like which some preparations can be made for.  [Also going to be an interesting test of the butterfly effect - will weather events change and if so by now much and how quickly?]

  Going to be a lot of issues on things like global warming, plastic and other pollution, assorted political and technological ideas etc.  Could see restrictions on smoking coming in significantly earlier, which would be a good move.

  In terms of British politics there's going to be issues for both major parties.  How does 1970 Labour react to the split at the end of the decade and the trouble throughout it with the trade unions the former especially leaving them weakened and isolated from power for the bulk of the next 40 years?  Similarly with the Tories the relationship between Edward Heath and Margaret Thatcher when they hear of future conflict between them and the checquered record of the latter.  Plus will details of how the EEC develop turn the British public against it?  [Could avoid 50 years of membership and resulting damage for Britain and since that would mean the survive of the EFTA as a viable alternative could change European history considerably.

  Steve

[Zyobot]

For one thing, I wonder what '70s TV watchers would make of the fact that there are people who laugh at weird shit like this (myself included).

Wide Putin walking but he's always in frame (full version)


And wait until they search this 'Putin' guy up and find out that he's an ex-KGB agent turned President/Prime Minister of Russia, which--at least in another future--involved the USSR collapsing and being replaced by a semi-democratic, but de-facto authoritarian 'Russian Federation' marked by crony capitalism, billionaire oligarchs and steady decline from the superpower status that it enjoyed during its heyday as the Soviet Union.

[Zyobot]

Jun 15, 2020 19:43:39 GMT Zyobot said:

For one thing, I wonder what '70s TV watchers would make of the fact that there are people who laugh at weird shit like this (myself included).

Wide Putin walking but he's always in frame (full version)


And wait until they search this 'Putin' guy up and find out that he's an ex-KGB agent turned President/Prime Minister of Russia, which--at least in another future--involved the USSR collapsing and being replaced by a semi-democratic, but de-facto authoritarian 'Russian Federation' marked by crony capitalism, billionaire oligarchs and steady decline from the superpower status that it enjoyed during its heyday as the Soviet Union.

While I'm at it, there's also mainstream pop-cultural content they'd likely find plenty weird (and, perhaps, disturbing as well). This one, for example, probably would've been met with scrunched eyebrows as little as ten years ago--being composed and performed by Lada Gaga tends to generate that effect. Nowadays, though, probably not as much.

Lady Gaga - Paparazzi (Audio)

[Zyobot]

This may seem pretty random, but since there are plenty of them alive and kicking at this time, I wonder how they'd react to content from future veterans and current military personnel. With veterans of World War Two, Korea and Vietnam being the most prevalent of their breed throughout the Western world (with some Great War veterans interspersed as well), how they perceive the quickly evident generation gap between themselves and their successors would make for an interesting conversation topic, I think. Not only insofar as the different wars to be--or as they otherwise would've been--fought in the future, with blurred lines, precision strikes and the war on ideas rather than defined nation-states that characterizes the War on Terror, but also how much more open they are about their experiences and what actually goes on in the military. Namely, struggles with PTSD and more blatantly cynical takes on war, in large part showing at least US viewers who stumble across war and military-related content that Vietnam was no one-off.

Here's a more family-friendly instance of what I'm talking about, albeit in the broad sense rather than relating to the main specifics of my spiel.

5 Reasons Why I got out of the Military (Navy)

[Zyobot]

As another demonstration of disparate outlooks, how about Seventies reactions towards content that lampoons the geopolitical foes of the Western World? Combine that with the almost 'randomly generated weirdness' value of the content in question, and I think it'd demonstrate pretty quickly just how much culture and the standards for what's acceptable have--or rather, would have--changed within the coming decades. Just look at how the gravitas surrounding the USSR is thrown out of the window here (much to my amusement, anyway), and you'll see what I mean fairly fast.

SOVIET UNION ANTHEM VOCAL COVER 2018 ( официальный) 1080p FULL

[insect]

people of 1970s would believe internet worse then the national enquirer about spreading lies and misinformation.

[Zyobot]

Jun 27, 2020 21:56:33 GMT insect said:

people of 1970s would believe internet worse then the national enquirer about spreading lies and misinformation.

Oh, I don't doubt that at all. Deepfakes, fake news, de-contextualization of real news, lies by omission, and the works proliferate the digital media landscape. And sadly, rank-and-file netizens don't have much inclination or skill in fact-checking them to the extent that they seriously ought to.

That said, I don't think that should be construed to mean that their news is always better. First, consider that people had limited access to information just a few decades ago. You had your family, peers, teachers and the library to supply you with knowledge; you couldn't just Google stuff on a whim. For more current stuff, you went to the media, an industry occupied by newspapers and a select few TV networks--centralized sources that served as the Average Joe's main means of learning about the outside world. Think about the fact that these outlets are in charge of what the general populace does, and does not know. That's a golden opportunity to spin their account--bound to be imperfect due to agenda, bias, error and other facets of human nature--as objective fact and get away with it. If this theory holds true, then perhaps there never was such a thing as a neutral media. Just one that exploited its control over the world's information and convinced everyone else that they were telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

In short, I would challenge Seventies people who complain about the internet and unapologetically favor their sources instead to ask themselves whether the news media ever was objective to begin with, given the powerful interests and real potential for uncorrectable mistakes inherent to the downtimer media complex.

[stevep]

Jun 27, 2020 22:09:18 GMT Zyobot said:

Jun 27, 2020 21:56:33 GMT insect said:

people of 1970s would believe internet worse then the national enquirer about spreading lies and misinformation.

Oh, I don't doubt that at all. Deepfakes, fake news, de-contextualization of real news, lies by omission, and the works proliferate the digital media landscape. And sadly, rank-and-file netizens don't have much inclination or skill in fact-checking them to the extent that they seriously ought to.

That said, I don't think that should be construed to mean that their news is always better. First, consider that people had limited access to information just a few decades ago. You had your family, peers, teachers and the library to supply you with knowledge; you couldn't just Google stuff on a whim. For more current stuff, you went to the media, an industry occupied by newspapers and a select few TV networks--centralized sources that served as the Average Joe's main means of learning about the outside world. Think about the fact that these outlets are in charge of what the general populace does, and does not know. That's a golden opportunity to spin their account--bound to be imperfect due to agenda, bias, error and other facets of human nature--as objective fact and get away with it. If this theory holds true, then perhaps there never was such a thing as a neutral media. Just one that exploited its control over the world's information and convinced everyone else that they were telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

In short, I would challenge Seventies people who complain about the internet and unapologetically favor their sources instead to ask themselves whether the news media ever was objective to begin with, given the powerful interests and real potential for uncorrectable mistakes inherent to the downtimer media complex.

  There has always been bias and vested interest in media along with every other source of power and influence.  What I think most people who grew up in the 70's, at least in the Anglo-sphere might argue the difference is that there was the stated view that morals matters in the 70's while, especially in Britain but also to a large extent in the US, that's been very much dumped in favour of short term personal interests.  True it could be argued that that social identity was a fake set up by those in power to get people to toe the line but its very existence gave it some merit.  To me I think that's the big loss nowadays has compared to the 70s'.  There are a lot of groups still pressing moral issues, although very much in splintered and sometimes counter-productive form but the basis social image is of a less co-operative world and alienation from others, making it easier for the very powerful to prevent challenges to their interests.  Its basically the old tactic of divide and conquer.

  There is much greater access to information now, for good and ill but there is less ability to actually use it to make a difference for ordinary people I fear.