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.

  • calliope@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    1·
    2 days 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.