“It’s just The ‘content’ of any medium that is very common blinds us to the medium character. “That’s why he said horribly the theory of ganja communication Marshall McLuhan About 57 years ago.
What McLuhan meant was that in a discourse influenced by electronic media, we are very frustrated with individual utterances, while ignoring those communication systems where those speeches live.
This week, McLuhan’s famous observation shut down the mothballs and when it received final practical application Facebook Surveillance Board, Panel of experts appointed by Facebook, Inc., Decided In order to increase restrictions on Donald Trump’s use of Facebook and Instagram, Facebook was given six months to come up with a “proportional response consistent with the rules” of the platform.
At the moment, who really cares? The former president has suffered casualties and even tied him up to Facebook with infamous chaos, embarrassment and all sorts of masks, hate speech, and a variety of defamation and harassment.
But apart from the dynamics of what was posted on social media on the Facebook board, only two posts were alleged to be evaluated on Instagram and Facebook. It has done these two intimate lessons, and is incredibly good. But that success, and the decision about Donald Trump, was neither here nor there. In the end, the result of the exercise was to move away from Facebook’s own guilt at a more pervasive loss of democracy. The committee first called McLuhan a “message” as the key to the decision-making, with the two pieces of material being “cut into pieces, pieces, pieces, pieces, pieces, pieces, pieces, pieces, pieces, pieces, pieces, pieces, pieces, pieces, pieces, pieces, pieces, pieces, pieces, pieces, pieces, pieces, pieces, pieces, pieces, pieces, pieces, pieces, pieces, pieces, pieces. The first was a video of Trump giving an address on a camera that began with, “I know your pain” “It was posted on EST, Facebook and Instagram on January 6, 2021, and time stamped as the U.S. Capitol was violently attacked by Trump supporters. Was.
The second was a 42-word paragraph on Facebook named after Trump, just two hours later. “These were the events that took place when the victory of the election of a Holy Landlord was tainted with corruption by the great patriots who had been so badly treated for so long. Go home in love in peace. Remember this day forever! ”
The statement from Facebook’s monitoring group focused on the language, time and source of the two posts. It never once mentioned mobility, business models or tools on social media, Instagram and Facebook.
According to the board, “‘We love you. You remember this day forever in the first post and in’ The Great Patriot ‘and’ The Second Post. ‘
In the case of the timestamps, the statement said, “During Mr. Trump’s posts, there was a clear, immediate risk of damage, and his support for those involved in the riots justified their violent actions.”
“Mr. Trump had a high level of influence as president,” the statement said. The presence of his posts was huge with 35 million followers on Facebook and 24 million on Instagram. The board added: “It is not always effective to distinguish between political leaders and other influential users, recognizing that other users with huge audiences may also be at serious risk of harm.”
Although the matter is really presented, this point in the oversight board’s statement was a surprise – even a shock. To Facebook, the American president is clearly not a government official or even a general, he is an influential person. And he gets his power not from the public but from the models of Facebook and its business influencers and followers.
The power established on Facebook is not sociologically “legitimate”; Unlike electricity teachers or elected officials, it is not a force to be reckoned with by those who have used it. Away from it. The “impact” on Facebook is nothing more than a (deceptive) point system in Facebook’s highly stylized multiplayer role-playing game. However, none of the members of the committee mentioned McLuhan’s blindness to the uniqueness of the game. The impact of Facebook is closer to the impact of World War II than legitimate power. But instead of calling on Facebook to create a system that provides uncontrolled and dangerous “effects” on people, they talk about the abuse of that system by nominated bad actors.