[76lsjumb]

Absolutely correct.  After all, look how much more unified and civil [not to mention more physically fit] everyone has become as a result of the advent of the internet and explosion of social media.  Now that were all so much more connected and capable of responding to anyone, anywhere, at any time, bullying has basically ceased to exist, for example.

Yeah, none of those things were problems before the internet.  Disagreements never lead to violence and certainly not to wars.   Bullying did not exist.  Everyone ate healthily and exercised the recommended three times per week.   Oy.

Sorry.  I must have misinterpreted your post.  I thought you meant that new ideas, things, etc., "in almost every case" made things better, not worse, and that the contrary argument -- to wit, that existing problems can actually be made worse by new ideas, things, etc. -- was invalid.  

My point is not that everything pre-Internet and social media was peaches and cream, but that many of the beneficial effects that the internet and social media were touted as likely to provide, in fact, have not only not come to pass [at least so far], but have been wholly eclipsed by opposite, harmful effects.  I think a legitimate case can be made that will also come to pass with respect to pay for play.  

After all, the "law of unintended consequences" isn't a cliche for nothing...

[76lsjumb]

Absolutely correct.  After all, look how much more unified and civil [not to mention more physically fit] everyone has become as a result of the advent of the internet and explosion of social media.  Now that were all so much more connected and capable of responding to anyone, anywhere, at any time, bullying has basically ceased to exist, for example.

Yeah, none of those things were problems before the internet.  Disagreements never lead to violence and certainly not to wars.   Bullying did not exist.  Everyone ate healthily and exercised the recommended three times per week.   Oy.

Sorry.  I must have misinterpreted your post.  I thought you meant that new ideas, things, etc., "in almost every case" made things better, not worse, and that the contrary argument -- to wit, that existing problems can actually be made worse by new ideas, things, etc. -- was invalid.  

My point is not that everything pre-Internet and social media was peaches and cream, but that many of the beneficial effects that the internet and social media were touted as likely to provide, in fact, have not only not come to pass [at least so far], but have been wholly eclipsed by opposite, harmful effects.  I think a legitimate case can be made that will also come to pass with respect to pay for play.  

After all, the "law of unintended consequences" isn't a cliche for nothing...