Was he right? And how does his theory apply to 4chan and the

It doesn't apply to the content of 4chan at all. Really social media is a good way to increase the consumption of electricity e.g. fossil fuels.

>>9623953
aren't we a medium? don't we have a message?

aren't we a particularly distinctive medium from all rest (lack of censorship, anonymity even from one post to the next)? and don't we have a particularly distinctive message?

>>9623978
I think Marshy would judge that the medium in this case would be the smartphone/internet itself as opposed to 4chan in particular.

>>9624055
This. 4Chan is content. Your laptop/pc/phone is the "medium" through which you access said content.

>>9624055
so the internet was always supposed to be like we are and all the "normal internet" is just the old society trying to resist the change the medium inevitably brings by imposing rules and censorship that don't really belong?
I can accept that. New OP:
Was he right? And how does his theory apply to the internet and the prevalent extremist content of our message?

>>9624096
It doesn't apply to the content--communicating over the internet and the social consequences of so many people communicating that way is far more significant than anything that is said over the internet. Our internet activity as such is changing life, changing the way we think and approach life. The content is just like the detritus of this activity. You and OP should actually read his book it's good.

>>9624055
Well, you can make an argument about how the "ontological structures" of, say, Facebook and 4chan are profoundly different when it comes to membership, posting and "community building"; one would think that, by operating in two different regimes of communication, the content becomes inherently differentiated.
Of course, without contemporary ICTs this dialogue wouldn't even be happening so ultimately they are "sub-mediums", if there's even such a thing.

Haven't read the book so I'm probably using the terminology in the wrong way,
thanks for reminding me of its existence by the way. I'll pick it up tomorrow.

>>9624096
I think that you could look at TV and the shift in programming over the decades as somewhat analogous to whatever shift is happening online.
For example, I don't think Marshy would think it's significant that you're watching something wholesome like Happy Days instead of Million Dollar Extreme. The content is wildly different but the medium is the same. I also don't think he'd care if you had access to five channels vs 500 vs streaming.
My point is that I think Marshy has little or nothing to say about the changes you're noticing. He'd probably have more to say about Internet access via desktop PC vs Internet internet access via smartphone.

>>9624110
not sure I understand. is my interpretation of "is the message" wrong in the same way? what do you think he meant if, in your view
>something something is far more significant than anything that is said over the internet
>The content is just like the detritus of this activity

>>9624131
you too, same question. if you think
>marshy has little or nothing to say about the changes you're noticing

what's wrong with my interpretation that when he says "is the message", he's talking about the content?

>>9624157
It's pretty obvious that he's saying the medium [and not the content] is the message. That is the whole point of the book.

>>9624127
I agree with you, I think the medium changes when the posting rules changes, there's stuff we can do here we can't in other platforms.
Therefore, according to McLuhan, our message is different.

>>9624170
>implying you can't be effectively anonymous and shitpost on other platforms by setting up troll accounts
>implying you even bothered to read the Wikipedia page about this book

>>9624169
that the medium affects the message, right? when the medium changes, the message, the content also changes.
So, is 4chan's message extremist because we can pretty much post freely?

>>9623945
really good radio documentary
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08jfckq

you're welcome

>>9624174
No he's not saying that! He is saying that the media impacts the way we view reality more than the content which we consume via those media. He purposely leaves out the content!!! Argh nice bait m8

>>9624174
Have you read the book?

how many of his predictions have actually happened

File: o287.png (405KB, 600x505px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 600x505px

>>9624182
it's not b8, it's my interpretation, 2 people are saying it's wrong but they can't point out what's wrong about it. He says the medium is the message, the medium affects (determines, in fact) the content. Makes sense to me.
What am I not seeing?

>>9624200
I don't think you've read the book and you're basing your opinion on the title and perhaps a few selected quotes. I want to continue in good faith so could you please select a few passages that support your interpretation and we can keep this going. Right now it's not so much that you're wrong but that you haven't grappled with the material much at all.

>>9624200
You're entirely missing the point. I don't think you've read the book. McLuhan isn't saying the medium affects the content, in fact he's saying it doesn't. If you think shitposting is something really new you should read more.

>>9624127
It can be read in 5 minutes. It's 'massage,' by the way. What is being rubbed, or rather stroked?

File: mcluhan1.jpg (80KB, 1000x500px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1000x500px

>>9624213
I read it a long time ago, but this is what I took from it at the time. And until today. Bear in mind the reason for this thread was I found myself thinking
>why is 4chan message so extremist?
>of course, its distinctive format and rules allow people to say whatever they think and whatever they want without restriction, it had to be like that
>McLuhan is proven right yet again
and I wanted to know if people agreed

>>9624303
I don't disagree that anonymity on 4chan divorces people from the social consequences of their comments but I don't think that has anything to do with McLuhan's idea. And anyway, 4chan isn't so extreme outside of /pol/ or /b/

>>9624303
Also i would bet English isn't your first language and I don't mean that in a shitty way but the title "the medium is the message" has a very nuanced sense to it that might not come across to non-native speakers.

>>9623945
this book is a waste of time, read understanding media instead

>>9624671
Were it not so quick, and the type of thing you couldn't fully read while moping about a bookstore, i'd agree completely.

>>9624671
/thread

>>9624172
>>9624170
>>9624127
BBS forums similar this khmer basket weaving image forum predate commercial/civilian internet
so the chans are a medium themselves separate from the internet and normie web 2.0