Neurozo Innovation
Andrew CoutsWe’ve heard for years that we’re in a moment of widespread distrust of institutions. But perhaps we’d be better off focusing on how much damage one person can do.
RiskFromHome@couts during a recent project, a colleague used the word "superindividuals" to describe certain members of society whose influence rivals state power. I wasn't aware of this term, and I immediately became furious our time required its invention.
Dorna Mohaghegh@couts they are in some ways related, no? Meaning, if institutions were trusted and therefore operating with full support and legitimacy, perhaps one person wouldn’t be able to have such an outsized impact (at least, not to this extent) because the institutions could provide a degree of counterweight/act as a ceiling.
Ashton@couts I’d argue that’s part of the same problem. One person couldn’t do as much damage if institutions were healthier.
@couts One person can't do it alone, even in the internet age. It takes others amplifying and/or coordinating to spread messaging and create a mildly plausible alternate reality. Without the institutions (Fox, social media, talk radio), it's just one man screaming into the void.
Kevin Werbach@couts Isn't that kind of the point? Institutions are things that limit the power of one person to do damage.
The real question is the arrow of causality. Was the death of institutions the cause or effect?
Steve Brumby@couts - irony being that aggressive individuals rely on weak collective institutions to fail to stop them. If workers at #TheOtherSite were in a union, if the users had demanded Board representation (as many people as possible buy one share each and pool the voting rights?), #ThatGuy would have picked a different site to acquire.
Vishnu Prasad@couts Isn't the power wielded by that person, that makes them capable of doing damage, given to them by institutions?