←back to thread

109 points crescit_eundo | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.214s | source
Show context
aredox ◴[] No.42741439[source]
>In the 1860s, Charles Baudelaire bemoaned what we might now call doomscrolling: [...] The poet’s revulsion was widely shared in 19th-century France. Amid rapid increases in circulation, newspapers were depicted as a virus or narcotic responsible for collective neurosis, overexcitement and lowered productivity.

On one hand, one could think "oh, the current social network bashing is just the same doom and gloom reaction to more communication, it will pass".

On the other hand, if you know well the period, the newspapers of the time - which were closer to the tabloids of today, but worse - did a lot to stir hatred of foreigners, of Jews, of Poor, and contributed massively in causing wars, colonialism and pogroms.

Emile Zola published "J'accuse !" in a newspaper, but it was newspapers who stirred rabid antisemitism everywhere.

replies(7): >>42741577 #>>42742305 #>>42742615 #>>42743062 #>>42743070 #>>42744093 #>>42745186 #
zozbot234 ◴[] No.42743062[source]
> the newspapers of the time - which were closer to the tabloids of today, but worse - did a lot to stir hatred of foreigners, of Jews, of Poor, and contributed massively in causing wars

Sure, but this is just as true of the earliest printed works in the 16th and 17th centuries. So this really is a fallacious argument unless you also think that we should be dispensing with freedom of the press in general.

replies(1): >>42745693 #
1. theendisney ◴[] No.42745693[source]
Seems a great idea. The trash on social media is some how less trashy than the papers. We should ban it for one or more years then give them their freedom back conditionally, under supervision. We should elect the supervisors.