I'm running the ACIG.info (formerly ACIG.org) forum since exactly 18 years, meanwhile, and have experienced the very same development several times. Have never clearly defined my thoughts and experiences in this regards, though, so let me try to do so in reply to your - highly interesting - questions.Originally Posted by Abu Suleyman
I think it's similar to the team-building process: something like the 'usual first phase' is one where 'everybody' (involved, that's including the creators of the internet appearance and all of its visitors) is 'highly enthusiastic', 'happy to participate' etc.
After a while, things start to sort out and become routine. Some get disappointed - for most different reasons - and leave. Other people come, or not at all. It all depends.
Now, one of 'problems', or 'issues', is that over the time every internet appearance is 'entrenching' itself at a specific point of view. Its subsequent success is then depending on the popularity of the point of view in question. Probably also on the skill of its owners to 'forward their message' to the public too (see: 'advertising').
The public is also increasingly 'entrenching': ever fewer people are interested in the depth of information, but easy to distract with literal nonsense (just see all the reports about celebrities).
Means not there are less of those with genuine interest and readiness to go 'in-depth': however, such people tend to get overwhelmed by all the information offered, regardless how irrelevant 99% of the same is. This results in such people having it ever harder to find out what might be interesting for them, and what not.
So, to get over to answering your questions:
I do not think they did. Or if, then in positive direction. There is more need for good, reliable, coherent and well-substantiated information than ever before. Platforms providing the information in that style might have less traffic, but those knowing about them are always going to return to them, and in turn 'drag/pull' other new visitors with them.[*]Have the changes in the social media environment fundamentally altered the role of groups like SWC?
Not to my knowledge.[*]Has the changes in the nature of fora helped or hurt the study and practice of warfare
The wars have not changed the least. Quite on the contrary! The war are still the very same (usually bloody) mess of humans, sweat, ####, dirt and plenty of things that do 'bang' (and quite nasty things to the humans). I.e. the 'military realities' are very much still the same.
What did change is the 'public perception' of the wars. Primary difference is the illusion of the mass of people that they can now 'follow' and 'understand' what's going on in some war - all thanks to the IT.
In this regards, actually nothing changed over the last, say, 50 years. Even if 'watching over the shoulder' of some combatant thanks to go-pro cameras, the mass of people simply can't understand what's going on.
What did change is that before the internet, we were all depending on a relatively limited number of acknowledged experts: people who seriously monitored specific conflicts, and reported about them.
Nowadays, we're facing endless hordes of self-declared 'Messiahs' - ranging from all sorts of journos, to 'map drawers' and whatever other kind of 'war monitors' - who insist that they can explain everybody what's going on in some conflict.
No doubt, more information is available about specific wars, and then 'in near-real time' - than ever before.
However, it's the 'sort' of that information that matters more than ever before.
In my experience, that 'sort' is what makes the difference: if an internet appearance can offer a good, 'easy to read' sort, it's attracting visitors. If it cannot... it's going to down, just like an entire mass of Messiahs on Twitter, FB and similar platforms is regularly disappearing after a while.
Bookmarks