De mi van, ha tévedünk?

Résumé

What if we are wrong?
The conclusions of more than a decade’s worth of scientific research seems to lead towards the crystallization of a number of axioms about the effects new media exerts upon public disputes (social discourse, public opinion, debate culture, freedom of speech). This presentation focuses on three such axioms: “new media facilitates the formation of opinion bubbles”, “bubbles enhance interactions between persons sharing similar beliefs”, “this reduces the possibility of confronting distinctive opinions, polarizes and endangers democracy”. They fit nicely into contemporary mainstream worldviews, as well as into the discussions about the renaissance of fascism, once thought to be marginalized for good, the insurgence of populist political language, and the increasing popularity of more than worrying public figures.
But what if we are wrong? Could it be some faux nostalgy, which makes us perceive traditional (legacy) media, from the perspective of the new, as diverse, balanced and unbiased? Are social media platforms indeed made up of interactions between consenting individuals? And could/would pre-Internet/Internet-free public life have been less polarized than what we experience it as today?