Did Friedman foresee the rise of social media and its dual impact on politics and societal cohesion?

Okay, let's dive into this fascinating question.

Did Friedman Foresee the Rise of Social Media and its Dual Impact on Politics and Social Cohesion?

The short, direct answer is: He anticipated half of it, but misjudged the other half.

Think of Friedman as a brilliant architect. He accurately drew up the blueprint for "The World is Flat," foreseeing how globalization and technology would tightly connect us all. But he didn't fully anticipate that we, living in this building, would use the tools he designed to build countless internal walls, even attacking each other.

Let me explain this in detail.

1. What Did He Foresee? – The "Platform" for Individual Empowerment

When Friedman published The World is Flat in 2005, Facebook was barely starting, and Twitter didn't exist yet. So, he couldn't have specifically named "social media."

However, he keenly captured the core driver behind it: technology was empowering individuals with unprecedented power.

You can understand it like this:

The Tools That "Flattened" the World: Friedman saw the internet, fiber optics, and open-source software as "bulldozers." These tools were "flattening" barriers between nations, corporations, and individuals.
The Super-Empowered Individual: He foresaw that any ordinary person with a computer and internet access could use this flat platform to compete with multinational corporations, spread their ideas, and connect with people on the other side of the world.

Isn't this the core spirit of social media? An ordinary person can become a global star via YouTube, an entrepreneur can sell products worldwide via social networks, a citizen journalist can broadcast live events via Twitter.

From this perspective, Friedman completely foresaw the rise of social media as a "tool of empowerment." He saw how it would break information monopolies, make politics more transparent, and make it easier for people to organize (as seen in the early stages of the "Arab Spring" later on). This indeed represents its positive side for politics.

2. What Did He Not Foresee? – The Quagmire of "Balkanization"

Friedman was extremely optimistic overall about the impact of technology. He believed that when everyone could communicate and compete on a level playing field, it would foster understanding and cooperation.

However, he vastly underestimated human complexity and the potential for technology to be "weaponized." What he didn't anticipate was:

Information Silos and Echo Chambers: Social media algorithms, designed to keep you engaged, constantly feed you content you like and agree with. Over time, you end up in an "echo chamber," hearing only like-minded views, believing your perspective is universal truth, and growing increasingly intolerant of differing opinions.
Tribalism and Identity Politics: When people only hear voices from their own group, they naturally form online "tribes." These tribes become antagonistic, attacking and demonizing each other to defend their "identity" (e.g., political stance, values). This doesn't foster social cohesion; it tears it apart.
The Viral Spread of Misinformation and Extremism: Friedman saw the convenience of information dissemination, but he didn't foresee that this convenience also worked perfectly for lies and hatred. On social media, extreme, inflammatory, and sensational content often spreads faster and farther than moderate, rational content. This is devastating for political stability and social trust.

Therefore, Friedman did not foresee that this "flat world" wouldn't automatically lead to harmony. Instead, it makes it easier for people to find their "tribe," build walls, and form mutually hostile, isolated "digital villages." This represents social media's negative impact on social cohesion and was the major blind spot in his optimistic predictions.

Summary

Friedman's Foresight: He saw that technology would empower individuals immensely, break down old power structures, and make the world "flat." This perfectly explains why social media rose and its positive roles in promoting information flow and civic engagement.
Friedman's Blind Spot: He was overly optimistic and failed to foresee the powerful "counterforce" generated by the interaction of human nature with algorithms – creating division, intensifying conflict, and fracturing society. This "flat" world did not naturally move towards integration; instead, in many places, it became more fragmented and polarized.

One could say Friedman envisioned an idealized "global village," while the reality of social media has, to a large extent, turned it into a noisy, divided "online Balkans." The world was flattened in one sense, but we used these tools to dig new trenches on this flattened ground.