The printing press to social media
Every New Medium Gets Blamed for the Same Things
The moral panic about social media rotting young minds is almost word-for-word what people said about the printing press in 1500.
The Idea
There is a pattern so consistent across history that it almost deserves a name. Call it the Disruption Script. Each time a new communication technology emerges — the printing press, the novel, the telegraph, radio, television, and now social media — society moves through the same anxious sequence: wonder, then dread, then a slow normalisation that everyone later pretends was inevitable. What makes this more than a trivia observation is what it reveals about us. The panic is never purely irrational. Print did destabilise the Catholic Church's monopoly on scriptural interpretation, leading to a century of religious wars. Cheap novels in the 18th century did reach women and working-class readers who had previously been locked out of literature — which was, depending on your politics, either dangerous or liberating. Television genuinely did restructure the family home around a glowing box. But the fears are almost always aimed at the wrong target. Critics of each new medium tend to mistake the medium for the message — and the message for the entire social change. The printing press didn't cause the Reformation; it accelerated forces already in motion. Social media didn't invent polarisation or narcissism; it gave both of those things a distribution network. The more useful frame is this: new media technologies don't create human behaviours, they amplify and reroute them. Understanding that distinction changes how you ask questions about any technology — not 'what is this doing to us?' but 'what in us is this making louder?'
In the World
In 1565, the Swiss naturalist Conrad Gessner published what is often cited as the first information-overload complaint in history. He warned that the mass of books being produced by the printing press was 'confusing and harmful' to the mind — that readers were being overwhelmed by a 'confusing and harmful abundance of books.' He specifically fretted about the difficulty of knowing which texts were trustworthy and which were not. Swap 'books' for 'content' and Gessner could be a 2024 op-ed. The specific vocabulary of misinformation — too much, too fast, unreliable, impossible to curate — is structurally identical to what humanist scholars said about print in the 16th century. Fast-forward to 1936. The BBC had been broadcasting for a decade, and the British Medical Journal published a letter warning that radio was producing a generation of 'passive listeners' who would lose the capacity for active thought. The same concern, almost verbatim, resurfaced in 1977 about television, in 2005 about video games, and in 2017 about the smartphone. None of this means the current fears about algorithmic feeds and teenage mental health are wrong. Some of them may be entirely justified. But the near-perfect repetition of the script across five centuries suggests that the anxiety is also doing something for the anxious — perhaps reassuring older generations that the world they understood is not, after all, slipping away from them.
Why It Matters
Knowing the Disruption Script doesn't make you cynical about technology criticism — it makes you better at it. When you recognise the pattern, you can start separating the structural fear (which is reflexive and historical) from the specific harm (which is real and worth investigating on its own terms). This matters practically. Policymakers who don't know the history tend to reach for the same blunt tools — restriction, moral condemnation, nostalgia for the previous medium — that have always failed to address the actual problem. Meanwhile, researchers who are aware of the pattern are more likely to ask harder, more specific questions: not 'is social media bad' but 'which features, for which populations, under which conditions, produce which measurable effects?' For the rest of us, the takeaway is a kind of calibrated scepticism in both directions. The person who says 'social media is destroying society' is probably wrong in the sweeping sense, but not entirely wrong. The person who says 'every generation panics and it always turns out fine' is drawing the wrong lesson from the right history. The printing press did lead to a century of wars. It also produced the Enlightenment. Both things are true, and that's the uncomfortable place to sit.
A Question to Ponder
If every generation experiences the same panic about the new medium, what would it actually look like to have a genuinely new and warranted concern — and how would you tell the difference?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable