Way to go anonymous with accusations. You accuse me of
spreading “conspiracy theories” but make absolutely no reference to what I said
that you disagree with. Which makes me suspect that you lack skills in effective
communication. That lack of communication skills is what this post is all
about.
Though I’m loathe to do so, I’m going to have to assume that
you are talking about a recent post. I hate making assumptions, but you didn’t
give me anything to go on. The OP also accused my words of being conspiracy
theory, so I’m guessing you are either the OP or someone who agrees with their
statement.
Here’s what the OP took umbrage with:
“The problem I keep running into is that these sites (twitter
clones) are designed by coders who think that no one would possibly want to say
something longer than 500 characters. It’s okay if the pictures are tiny and
shitty. It’s okay if the interface is confusing as fuck.
It’s completely Orwellian. It is designed to limit
information, limit conversation, and prevent art from being presented in a
format that actually conveys meaning. You keep talking about how it’s
unregulated and decentralized, but you fail to mention that the very format
controls how we choose to communicate. It’s so much more insidious, because
it’s not direct control, instead it makes your thoughts conform to its limits.
Of course, every medium does that to extent, but not with the same choke-hold
that twitter clones have.”
First, we’re going to have to unpack the term, “conspiracy
theory,” which at face value is simply stating that I have a suspicion that one
or more people deliberately planned for an outcome. It’s funny how the term “conspiracy
theory” in our culture has become synonymous with outlandish allegations based
on tenuous evidence. There’s another example on how the power of language
controls our thoughts. But what I was referring to is not a conspiracy theory
in the classical sense. I in no way implied a bunch of people got together in a
room and decided to make these things happen. Except, they kinda did, but it’s
much more complicated and subtle than that.
You would know this if you had a good Liberal Arts
education, which I would bet you don’t, because most people have never received
one, and there are reasons for that. Our modern education system was developed
during the Industrial Revolution. Believe it or not, it was the factories
themselves that created the first modern classrooms. The owners recognized that
their workers were handling more and more complex tasks that required the
ability to read and do math. So schools were put right into the factories so
that the employees and their children could acquire the skills they needed to
work in the factories. Mom, dad, and the kids could work side-by-side, learning
how to multiply and be wage-slaves at the same time. When these schools were
designed, the industrialists absolutely did openly talk about what should and
shouldn’t be taught. And in the UK, in Parliament, there were debates on just
how much a factory worker should be taught.
You can see what changed in the education system by noticing
what was removed. Prior to the industrial schools, church schools and
universities spent a large portion of their time teaching Rhetoric—the art of
debate. They thought it important that a person could form a logical and
well-communicated argument. Factory owners wanted none of that, and most people
today haven’t even heard of the discipline of Rhetoric.
But the factory owners got sick of having to pay for this
education, and like good little capitalists, they decided to socialize the
costs. Make the public pay for it. So when the government created public
schools they simply copied the model of the factory schools. Industrial
education for industrial workers, kids lined up in desks and force-fed
information. The same care was taken in determining just how much these kids
should actually learn, so they don’t start to question the whole system.
You can hear our politicians echo the same reasoning today,
except they are more subtle about it. They talk about how education should, “prepare
people for the workforce.” And how we should concentrate wholly on STEM
education. They don’t need to actually learn about how to communicate ideas,
especially social and political ideas.
So all our modern communication systems were designed by
people focused on STEM. They have been programmed to look at the world that
way. Art, literature, and history mean very little to them, because that’s not
what they were taught. People hate being told that they have been programmed.
They like to think they are smart enough to break such control. But we are all
controlled in this way. Even you. Even me. I know my entire argument comes from
a Liberal Arts background. Just like the OP made extremely good arguments about
the technical issues involved because that’s what they know. The trick is to
recognize the expertise on both sides and make a truly informed decision.
So when I say twitter was deliberately designed to stifle
debate, I’m not saying the designers of twitter were sitting around going, “how
do we dumb down the public?” They were thinking like coders and engineers. They
just didn’t see the value in long-form communication. Also, they didn’t want to
make another Facebook where people argued endlessly. They failed on that one.
So is that a conspiracy theory? From a certain point of
view. Our society was absolutely designed to produce a website like twitter.
But not directly. It’s about shaping our modes of thought. That’s what Orwell
was talking about when he said the Ministry of Truth’s goal was to remove words
from the dictionary, so people couldn’t even think that way.
This entire post is kind of a testament to how this works,
and how it can be broken.