Who will be the first philosopher or cultural critic to truly explicate the effect the internet is having on the world...

interesting conclusion, basically rehashing things i’ve already heard and thought about, still nice to see it put in simple terms for the normalfags.
no, not really. why don’t you calm down and stop playing guard dog in graveyards user? or are you that afraid that my words might harm a supposedly titanic legacy such as his? pathetic little man.

>im yawning and vomiting at the same time
McLuhan is probably Canada's greatest intellectual, but I agree he's not appropriate for this thread. His work doesn't predict much of the developments that have occurred on the internet, but he does provide us with some tools that can help us to understand it.

I heard pic related is supposed to e good.

Fagggoty writing style

The internet has no effect. It's a medium.

You really should read McLuhan.

It's pretty clear that you don't want an intelligent person to "explicate" anything for you, what you want is for a naive future-historian to confirm your preconceptions about the current memespace which you are currently occupying without bringing in any complicated factors which may hurt your brain. In that case, just keep reading what you are currently reading

>Medium has no effect

McLuhan, Ellul and the classics of sociology. The internet is just the newest manifestation of the change that has been going on for two centuries.

projecterooni much?

Nicholas Carr and Angela Nagle don't count as intelligent people. Thanks, I will continue to read Friedrich Kittler and Paul Virilio.

1) Angela Nagle wrote a book on Veeky Forums and the alt-right. A tiny section, and nearly irrelevant part of the internet. Sure you could argue /pol/ had a part in electing trump but the shit that goes on in Veeky Forums, while interesting, probably has little effect on your average layman.

2) People are already discussing the effects the internet is having on culture. I personally can't name one philosopher who is exclusively concerned with the effects the internet has on the human race, but numerous people are highlighting individual problems. e.g. you have news reports of the effects facebook has in shaping opinions, and the paranoia over Russian bots socially engineering people. Social engineering and propaganda isn't particularly new anyway, it's been happening since the times of the ancient Greeks. But the scale of it has changed, I guess.

People like Land are just re-hashing the plot of the Matrix movies in fancy prose written under the influence of speed and nootropics

Go to bed logo daedalus

No you
yup, probably.

You seem knowledgeable, where's a good place to start with McLuhan? I've been reading "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman lately, and would like a deeper understanding of the subjects.

>has no effect. It's a medium.
Imagine being this stupid

>People like Land are just re-hashing the plot of the Matrix movies in fancy prose written under the influence of speed and nootropics
Niiice

byung chul han wrote about this in "Im Schwarm"

It's very interesting to see people talking about the internet when it was just starting, watch this:

youtube.com/watch?v=LaHcOs7mhfU
(skip to 1:15)
The interviewer doesn't even believe in it, while what Bowie is saying is just mild compared to what really happened.

Robert Anton Wilson said this (it's from an interview prior to 2003 at least)
>We are living in very weird times. The world is changing faster and faster, which I think is due to the accelaration of information. Information is increasing, the transmission of information is going faster and faster due to internet and the whole computer revolution, which means most people are living in a world they can't understand. And when people can't understand something they tend to go for sinister explanations: "somebody is manipulating things in a way I don't like". That's the way people feel when things change too fast and they can't understand them.

It's very simple, nothing extraordinary, but it's also so on point about fake news, post-truth, internet bot propaganda battles, fascists vs sjws, etc.

already done pic related

I will. Watch out for my book in 3-4 years.

Protip: Swiss.

I don't understand why Nagle got recognition for "analyzing" the ""alt-right"". Even wordpress blogs did a better job at doing this, which says a lot about their writing.

My diary desu

she didn't and the alt-right retards sperging out over her coffee book gave her more attention.

McLuhan saw the internet in the TV medium. McLuhan saw web 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and beyond. Deal with it. He knew the result of media evolution at infinity approaching the Omega point. He learned it from Finnegans Wake. He was the most advanced intelligent being in the history of mankind.

The fuck is happening with massive flood of McLuhan shills lately? I'm not against /pol/posters, but was he posted on /pol/ or something?

One month ago nobody could be bothered with discussing McLuhan and his theories, even though it's well known that he was an incredibly smart person, and now? Every single day there are five consecutive shitposts about him coming most likely from people who've never read a word of him

Acceleration does not changed the phenomenon which is occurring, it merely intensifies its effect.

>In other words, OP is a faggot and the internet is a mere culmination of alienation we have been seeing for two centuries at least

I have not been here much often lately, but all boards and Veeky Forums included work in trends that come and go. There were times when every five posts one was about Diogenes, or Stirner, or DFW, Zizek, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Ayn Rand, etc. Then it kind of stops and you see them less often.

My guess is that one or two anons made a good post about it or a thread with many replies, other anons search the web or read a paragraph or two to catch up with the subject. They are still digesting the information or are amazed by it in several ways and they can't hold themselves to not bring it up on every thread.

Based Bowie

Massive flood of McLuhan shills? Go search his name in the archive, barely anyone is talking about him, you're mistaken

The question itself is irrelevant. Philosophers, critics, and thinkers were authoritative specifically because of the effects books, magazines, and newspapers had on our understanding of information. We once understood that striving towards objectivity had merit. But all that has been fixed, and now we have no individual authority that can truly explicate anything.
---

We bang drum now. We network of happy scientists. We the mirror of communication infrastructure. Have parasitic gaze. Must devour earth. Must bang drum and make big gestures.

---

There are interesting authors like Walter Ong and F. Kittler I'd suggest. But what you're asking is not a good question because it is not specific enough. You should be asking questions like what effect did the internet have upon such and such a group when the internet during this time period arrived. The effects are always going to be studied everywhere in specific cases but no one can just make bold statements without essentially entering the culture wars. And no one is going to lead you towards an apocalypse without needing to hold themselves as righteous.

---

Back in the cage! Get! Get back in!

>medium
yeah, like the first printing presses weren't game changers, thanks bud

>Justin Murphy

why can't he fucking just be normal. why is every 30 something problem glasses wearing neckbeard soyboy bugman always look like this. im sure he has interesting things to say, but my fucking god this lack of awareness to how repulsive his appearance is. PEDESTRIAN.

P E D E S T R I A N

>web 2.0 and 3.0
no he had no idea FB and google were goingto unfold the way they did. Guessing things about info libraries and being able to look at any book you want isn’t understanding online markets, crypto, social media, online dating, pseudanonymous identities, forum culture, memes or anything like that. ridiculous. Baud knew more and even he had no fucking clue by the year of his death what was gonna happen. no one predicted this shit would happen, no one knew we’d exterminate our own souls online.
its from a certain Twitter user who is a McLuhanite and also Baud posting which references McLuhan obviously. Its not shilling its just a small group of people who are interested in media theory who are too fucking uncreative to write their own works and who suck off two dead guys who made a lot of wild guesses and half of them were correct. Still waiting for the Global village. More like a fucking global balkanized giga-favela with 10,000 rings of suffering. Wow internet psychedelica, wow memes, wow the death of discourse. So insightful *gives wry McLuhan smile when asked what it all means* idiot

>not all of us will suffer this fate, spiritual defense mechanisms, psychic immunity can be cultivated

hack pseud spotted

adam curtis is relevant to this discussion no? we are experiencing a form of reality-distortion similar to what he mentions at the end of hypernormalisation.

youtube.com/watch?v=kwglZTNhMNE

hope this is the clip.

The fuck are are these paranoid ramblings you're doing? I'm one of the only people who posts about McLuhan on this board and I've never used Twitter or social media in my life. And you clearly either have never actually read him and if you have then you've wildly misread him judging by that little summation you gave right there.

And McLuhan did predict the internet. All of his ideas were coming from other sources, I told you he learned it from Finnegans Wake. He didn't invent anything, he was a genius in connecting the dots. He was exploring and very careful not to to predict anything that had not already happened. He was an artist like Shakespeare and Joyce. The artist is the person who invents the means to bridge biological inheritance and the environments created by technological innovation. He was aware of the revolution provided by media evolution. That they are taking us backwards, that they are shaping our sense ratio, and that this all is to be found in the Christian religion. That we are living in apocalypse now.

>stop looking bad!!!!

there's been a 10x increase in talking about him recently

On this board? No there hasn't. Mcluhan has been mentioned about the same as he always has, Go search in the archives

meh fellow cocky feels
>sage in no fields

The internet provides a secondary node of identity, a secondary text andimage-based Self. This Self is a secondary concious as it functions the same way consciousness does, a function of seemingly disparate Others are filtered into our view while unimpottant ones, i.e. numbers of posts and collars of ceilings, are left behind. It interrupts our thoughts, notifications, throughout the day as it wonders.

We also have to ask a secondary questuon, the internet allows that secondary Self to experience a wider range of experiences than our primary Self, why and how does that matter? Firstly, it explains rampant insecurity in our culture because of our inability to fuse the two selves together. We need to remember, one Self is listened to and seen more; it exists in a secondary body always under Le regard des étrangers, whose perspectives form its center (or our understanding of their perspectives). Basically, this center is now two-fold, on one hand the center is of our social media platforms, but on another it is in mediums such as this. To illustrate, by writing this piece as an user, I am creating an identity of myself that exists entirely in this thread. I've posted on here before, but those posts you guys don't know are me. Moreover, your reactions then exist to a specific image I have of myself, i.e. testing my ability of philosophizing on complete strangers to get an image that is A) safer because it's a small portion of me, and B) less biased. This implies two effects, firstly a Self that is narcissistic and obsessed with identity while simultaneously being violently insecure, as no matter what happens in real life or online, those two halfs aren't fully whole. This logically means the goal of the internet is then to combine these two identities to form a superior, singular that is omniscient and garrulious with utopic ideas of the internet and none of the downsides, Self that is entirely just the self. This comes in the form of optimizing our lives, making bitmojis, feeling that we have to take poctures of beautiful scenes, posting pictures of ur loved ones online, etc. etc.

Would love your thoughts, I'm a pseud but this is first time sharing my "Philo"sophy with anyone

There are cultural anthropologists studying mimetics and the effects of internet-centric popular culture on various cultures and in a global setting.

Several professors around the world are working on "proofs" that Trump got elected largely due to his team's use of viral memes and internet in-jokes.

>There are also quite a few researchers trying to figure out what makes or breaks a social media platform in terms of virality, communication, and influence on each contributing or non-contributing member's respective culture. A large part of many of these kinds of attempts are Plebbit v. Veeky Forums, but no serious researcher/professor/academian wants the notoriety of being "the first to foray" into the asshole of the internet.
>They're all afraid they'd lose support, funding, and be laughed out of their fields by their peers.
>And rightly so. Look at how internet cultures respond to an outsider trying to fuck with them, the outsider usually ends up doxed or swatted, or worse.
>Hell, even the guy who created this shithole got doxed and tried to get authorities on his side in case anything happened, and we all loved the pretty princess faggot. RIP

t. assistant to professors trying to push this
>bretty gud comedy on the daily

This also, therefore, means the only way to avoid this is via a Christian ideal of self that is only in reference to self, ie something the two selves strive for, or via eliminating one of those Selves. Also, the logical counter that via my logic we have infinite selves is hurdur obvious, I mean to see two sections of groups of identities now, that exist on new playing fields of identity

*memetics
>oh, fuck me

bamp for curiosity