 |
|
Yes, Chomsky is dated, he doesn’t touch the rise of social
Posted on: April 25, 2025 at 23:18:42 CT
TigerMatt STL
Posts:
92739
Member For:
26.25 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
media. But that begs the question.
Who controls social media and the algorithms of what we can see?
There are indications that what we are seeing is actually a power struggle going on between the old power structure and a new power structure trying to gain control and shift society.
Yanis Varoufakis calls it a rise of “Techno-feudalism”. The platforms are owned by the elite who have sway over the popularity of content creators by the algorithms that control what we see giving an illusion of choice in consumption. We’ve seen recent examples like with Laura Loomer whose engagements recently plummeted after criticizing Elon Musk.
Perplexity.ai analysis:
Social media platforms do function as tools for manufacturing consent, extending Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman’s propaganda model from traditional news media into the digital age. Here’s how their framework applies to social media:
1. Ownership and Corporate Control
Social media platforms like Facebook (Meta), X (Twitter), and Instagram are owned by powerful corporations (e.g., Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, X’s Elon Musk) whose economic and ideological interests shape content moderation policies. For example:
• Pro-Palestinian content is often censored or shadow-banned on platforms like Instagram and X, reflecting the political biases of their owners.
• Corporate ownership prioritizes profit over public interest, leading to algorithmic amplification of sensationalist or divisive content to maximize user engagement.
2. Advertising as a Revenue Driver
Like traditional media, social media relies heavily on advertising revenue, creating a dependency on corporate and governmental advertisers:
• Platforms tailor content to maintain a “buying mood” for advertisers, avoiding controversial topics that might disrupt commercial interests.
• User data is commodified and sold to third parties, reinforcing corporate control over information flows.
3. Sourcing and Algorithmic Gatekeeping
Social media algorithms act as digital gatekeepers, privileging content from authoritative sources (e.g., governments, corporations) while marginalizing dissenting voices:
• Mainstream narratives about conflicts (e.g., Israel-Palestine) are amplified, while critical perspectives are suppressed.
• Algorithms prioritize engagement over accuracy, creating echo chambers that reinforce dominant ideologies.
4. Flak and Suppression of Dissent
Critics of powerful institutions face coordinated backlash (“flak”) on social media:
• Activists and journalists reporting on issues like corporate malpractice or war crimes risk deplatforming or harassment.
• Platforms often comply with government requests to censor content, as seen in the removal of posts criticizing U.S. foreign policy.
5. Fear Ideology and the “War on Terror”
Chomsky’s updated “fear ideology” filter manifests in social media’s role in amplifying security-state narratives:
• Post-9/11, platforms have facilitated the spread of anti-terrorism rhetoric, justifying surveillance and militarism.
• Crisis events (e.g., pandemics, wars) are framed through a lens that legitimizes state power and marginalizes alternative viewpoints.
New Mechanisms in Social Media
Beyond the original propaganda model, social media introduces novel consent-manufacturing tools:
• Clickwrap Agreements: Users mechanically accept terms of service without reading them, normalizing data exploitation and surrendering privacy rights.
• Algorithmic Manipulation: By controlling visibility, platforms subtly shape public perception of “acceptable” discourse, narrowing the Overton window.
• Decentralized Propaganda: Viral misinformation and astroturfing campaigns mimic organic debate, further entrenching systemic biases.
Conclusion
Social media not only replicates traditional media’s role in manufacturing consent but intensifies it through technological scale and user dependency. While Chomsky and Herman’s model focused on corporate news outlets, social media’s ownership structures, ad-driven ecosystems, and algorithmic governance create a more pervasive and insidious form of ideological control. The result is a digital public sphere where dissent is fragmented, commercial interests dominate, and consent is engineered through design rather than overt coercion.
There is substantial evidence of an ongoing power struggle between traditional media structures and emerging social media dynamics in shaping public consent. This tension revolves around competing mechanisms of influence, narrative control, and information dissemination.
This power struggle reflects broader societal shifts in authority structures, with neither system fully dominant. While social media has democratized information access, its algorithmic governance creates new centralized control points. Traditional media retains institutional advantages but faces eroded public trust and relevance. The ongoing tension underscores fundamental questions about who controls narrative construction in digital democracies.
Edited by TigerMatt at 00:31:35 on 04/26/25
Who controls social media and the algorithms of what we can see?
There are indications that what we are seeing is actually a power struggle going on between the old power structure and a new power structure trying to gain control and shift society.
Yanis Varoufakis calls it a rise of “Techno-feudalism”. The platforms are owned by the elite who have sway over the popularity of content creators by the algorithms that control what we see giving an illusion of choice in consumption. We’ve seen recent examples like with Laura Loomer whose engagements recently plummeted after criticizing Elon Musk.
Perplexity.ai analysis:
Social media platforms do function as tools for manufacturing consent, extending Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman’s propaganda model from traditional news media into the digital age. Here’s how their framework applies to social media:
1. Ownership and Corporate Control
Social media platforms like Facebook (Meta), X (Twitter), and Instagram are owned by powerful corporations (e.g., Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, X’s Elon Musk) whose economic and ideological interests shape content moderation policies. For example:
• Pro-Palestinian content is often censored or shadow-banned on platforms like Instagram and X, reflecting the political biases of their owners.
• Corporate ownership prioritizes profit over public interest, leading to algorithmic amplification of sensationalist or divisive content to maximize user engagement.
2. Advertising as a Revenue Driver
Like traditional media, social media relies heavily on advertising revenue, creating a dependency on corporate and governmental advertisers:
• Platforms tailor content to maintain a “buying mood” for advertisers, avoiding controversial topics that might disrupt commercial interests.
• User data is commodified and sold to third parties, reinforcing corporate control over information flows.
3. Sourcing and Algorithmic Gatekeeping
Social media algorithms act as digital gatekeepers, privileging content from authoritative sources (e.g., governments, corporations) while marginalizing dissenting voices:
• Mainstream narratives about conflicts (e.g., Israel-Palestine) are amplified, while critical perspectives are suppressed.
• Algorithms prioritize engagement over accuracy, creating echo chambers that reinforce dominant ideologies.
4. Flak and Suppression of Dissent
Critics of powerful institutions face coordinated backlash (“flak”) on social media:
• Activists and journalists reporting on issues like corporate malpractice or war crimes risk deplatforming or harassment.
• Platforms often comply with government requests to censor content, as seen in the removal of posts criticizing U.S. foreign policy.
5. Fear Ideology and the “War on Terror”
Chomsky’s updated “fear ideology” filter manifests in social media’s role in amplifying security-state narratives:
• Post-9/11, platforms have facilitated the spread of anti-terrorism rhetoric, justifying surveillance and militarism.
• Crisis events (e.g., pandemics, wars) are framed through a lens that legitimizes state power and marginalizes alternative viewpoints.
New Mechanisms in Social Media
Beyond the original propaganda model, social media introduces novel consent-manufacturing tools:
• Clickwrap Agreements: Users mechanically accept terms of service without reading them, normalizing data exploitation and surrendering privacy rights.
• Algorithmic Manipulation: By controlling visibility, platforms subtly shape public perception of “acceptable” discourse, narrowing the Overton window.
• Decentralized Propaganda: Viral misinformation and astroturfing campaigns mimic organic debate, further entrenching systemic biases.
Conclusion
Social media not only replicates traditional media’s role in manufacturing consent but intensifies it through technological scale and user dependency. While Chomsky and Herman’s model focused on corporate news outlets, social media’s ownership structures, ad-driven ecosystems, and algorithmic governance create a more pervasive and insidious form of ideological control. The result is a digital public sphere where dissent is fragmented, commercial interests dominate, and consent is engineered through design rather than overt coercion.
There is substantial evidence of an ongoing power struggle between traditional media structures and emerging social media dynamics in shaping public consent. This tension revolves around competing mechanisms of influence, narrative control, and information dissemination.
This power struggle reflects broader societal shifts in authority structures, with neither system fully dominant. While social media has democratized information access, its algorithmic governance creates new centralized control points. Traditional media retains institutional advantages but faces eroded public trust and relevance. The ongoing tension underscores fundamental questions about who controls narrative construction in digital democracies.
Edited by TigerMatt at 00:31:35 on 04/26/25
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
- 
Yes, Chomsky is dated, he doesn’t touch the rise of social - TigerMatt STL - 4/25 23:18:42