upvote
Not by a single lunatic operating from their bedroom.
reply
The whole hysteria about 'fake news' 10 years ago was apparently an outrage against the public being duped, whereas is was in fact frustration that spreading fake news has been democratised.
reply
From my POV the fake news hysteria was bound to trump's propaganda efforts and nothing else really.

But that's just a stupid central Europeans POV

reply
But it absolutely wasn’t he was the most famous critic but everyone saw this who looked. Since most people didn’t dive too deep it was/is easy to post things with a spin and little real substance and people would take it is a fact because they really trusted the news outlets to not manipulate
reply
deleted
reply
Lunatics in bedrooms have been distributing pamphlets since the invention of the printing press.
reply
Some historical context:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamphlet_war#History_of_the_pa...

> Throughout Europe in the 16th century, printed tracts were used to argue religious doctrine and foment support for religious causes. In England, Henry VIII used print literature to justify his break from the Catholic Church. During the subsequent reigns of Edward and Mary, print polemics escalated into propaganda warfare, as print media gained enormous potential to sway common opinion.

> Over the next century, the pamphlet became the principal means of garnering support for a cause or an idea, and was particularly influential during the English Civil Wars (1642-1651) and the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War

> Casualties: Parliamentarians 34,130 killed; Royalists 50,700 killed; 127,000 non-combat deaths (including some 40,000 civilians)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williamite_War_in_Ireland

> Casualties: Williamites: 10,000 killed or died of disease; Jacobites: 15,293 killed or died of disease

reply
I'd have called the folks on Skellig Michael lunatics in bedrooms, too. They just had a harder time copying their lunacy out by hand.
reply
Arguably much of the mid-20th century was the pipeline from "lunatic with pamphlet" => "millions dead".
reply
Their current reach is unprecedented though, and the reach of governments or political parties engaging in mass disinformation campaigns has proved almost an existential risk.
reply
They've been convincing women that its empowering to smoke cigarettes for a long time, too.
reply
"Back in my day Walter Cronkite told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the Gulf of Tonkin incident"

(never mind the fact that he didn't even have the full truth available to him but you get the point)

reply
But this also means there’s more competition for attention, because now all lunatics can post from their bedrooms. The institutional media (including legacy) still maintain strong presence.

Of course, a great deal of panic over fake news wasn’t necessarily over fake news per se, but whose fake news and the loss of control over the “official narrative” that legacy media used to have a monopoly over. This isn’t a vindication of the heaps of slop published on the internet, just a more synoptic take IMO.

People miss Cronkite, because that style of media made them feel certain in their opinions and in “official consensus reality”, regardless of whether it was true or not and whether it was a trustworthy authority or not.

reply
Scale is different though. Tapping a phone isn't new, tapping _all phones_ is different. Altering a photo to change what it appears to depict isn't new, being able to do it in a few seconds and for free is different. So sure, propaganda isn't new, but being able to pump out an organization's worth of credible-looking content for cheap absolutely is.
reply
deleted
reply
"Quantity is/has a quality all of/on its own."
reply
IIRC the first or second chapter of Bernays' Propaganda (1928) talks about sophisticated influence campaigns in the fashion industry. Conscripting "influencers" to induce demand, and so on. As you said, literally 100 years ago.
reply
Jill Fields at Cal State Fresno have actually narrowed it down to a (temporarily successful, but not in the long term, obviously) effort by the corset-making industry seeking to stay relevant after WWI during which corsets basically disappeared and there was an organized campaign that was organized both in person and through trade magazines. Women's silhouettes basically took a quick 180 right between 1900 and the start of the war only to turn very very retro in 1919 and while the first was organic and resembled how styles change in the century prior, albeit much quicker, the 1919 switch was openly plotted out in writing that was published but in such a niche publication that I get the sense that people not in the industry didn't even know that it existed. The cite to her paper on Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=17641417785638413...

You might have to shadow library this one, but it's a good read. Interestingly it seemed to be something entirely separate from Bernays whose observations were based on a derivation of what began as a homebrewed effort in a corner of the market. Valerie Steele wrote extensively about the trends and the after life but the source seems to originate in corsetry and ended up being copied by the garmet industry generally in the 20s.

reply