I had this thought the other day and couldn't help but wonder about it. After all, the internet has provided greater access to information, better methods of retrieving information and instantaneous access to many friends and family that we would have lost contact with in the past. So how could the internet possibly stifle thought and expression? It seems to have done more for both than anything before? Then I think about it some more and wonder...
Social media gives more access to people and what they are doing, thinking, etc. than anything we've ever had in the past. Television couldn't do it, newspapers couldn't do it, etc. However, it also allows the user, that's us, to significantly customize our experience. We choose our friends. We set stringent or lax security options. We like things we want to know more about. We basically surround ourselves with only the information we want to know. This severely limits what we might accidentally come across. In the newspaper and television ages, there was never such a thing as an unbiased media...however, it was possible to come across opinions and thoughts that were contrary to our own. Sure, our friends provide the occasional stimulating conversation, but most people don't want to actually think on Facebook, so they are more likely to unfriend someone who talks politics and defends their positions better than they are to actually think about their own. This is just a thought process post entirely. Any comments on this is welcome.
