If "social" media wasn't factually asocial by allowing anonymity, sockpuppet farms at least would have to usurp some real body's identity.
The structure of human society being hierarchical in nature (the 90-9-1 rule mentioned in the article) is a given. Lamenting it, implicitly or explicitly, is nonsensical. Society enacts a marketplace of ideas. Attaching those to persons is sort of a fallacy. Maybe due to the assumption, those with one good idea might have another one. Sometimes that's true though.
So, if some thinktank or company comes up with a good idea, or "hermenutical attractor" in your parlance, that's just fine? So long as nobody has an actually better idea, what's the problem?
The real problem is the lack of discussion space where ideas can be thoroughly compared.
The structure of human society being hierarchical in nature (the 90-9-1 rule mentioned in the article) is a given. Lamenting it, implicitly or explicitly, is nonsensical. Society enacts a marketplace of ideas. Attaching those to persons is sort of a fallacy. Maybe due to the assumption, those with one good idea might have another one. Sometimes that's true though.
So, if some thinktank or company comes up with a good idea, or "hermenutical attractor" in your parlance, that's just fine? So long as nobody has an actually better idea, what's the problem?
The real problem is the lack of discussion space where ideas can be thoroughly compared.