It's hard to imagine now, but at the end of the 20th century, if you weren't employed by a Newspaper or a TV network, about the only way you could let the world know your views was to write a letter to the editor of your local paper. And even if you could somehow make a friend in a far-away land, phone calls and postal mail were expensive. (I'm still sad I lost touch with students I met in Japan, Taiwan, and Indonesia in the 80's)
The internet, and social media in particular, changed all that. First only nerds could make a web pages. Some, like me, published our thoughts there using raw HTML. Then Moveable Type allowed anyone with an FTP site to publish. Then Blogger allowed anyone with a browser to publish. Then Flickr and Facebook and Twitter and all the rest. It was an exciting time.
I hope this help explains why we thought this would "level the playing field." What we read and what we watched was no longer dictated by TV Network bosses or editorial boards. Governments could no longer demonize people in other lands, because we were all free to (for example) be Facebook friends with those people. At least that was the theory. As I mentioned in another comment, it sure hasn't worked out that way.
> It's hard to imagine now, but at the end of the 20th century, if you weren't employed by a Newspaper or a TV network, about the only way you could let the world know your views was to write a letter to the editor of your local paper.
When you compare the profits of newspapers and TV stations to FB, it becomes obvious why so many media mogul billionaires are pushing for harsh regulations for Social Media...
> As I mentioned in another comment, it sure hasn't worked out that way.
