History, Disrupted: How Social Media and the World Wide Web Have Changed the Past

by Jason Steinhauer

The Internet has changed the past. Social media, Wikipedia, mobile networks, and the viral and visual nature of the Web have inundated the public sphere with historical information and misinformation, changing what we know about our history and History as a discipline. This is the first book to chronicle how and why it matters. Why does History matter at all? What role do history and the past play in our democracy? Our economy? Our understanding of ourselves? How do questions of history intersect with today’s most pressing debates about technology; the role of the media; journalism; tribalism; education; identity politics; the future of government, civilization, and the planet? At the start of a new decade, in the midst of growing political division around the world, this information is critical to an engaged citizenry. As we collectively grapple with the effects of technology and its capacity to destabilize our societies, scholars, educators and the general public should be aware of how the Web and social media shape what we know about ourselves - and crucially, about our past. 

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Academic

170 pages, Kindle Edition

Published December 7, 2021

About the author

Author, public historian, podcast host, Global Fellow at The Wilson Center

Reviews

[SalsaAram · Rating 1 out of 5]

I really wanted to like this book. However, the bias of the author is rather obvious. He tends to go deeply into mistakes that "left-leaning" news sources have made in the past. A good example is the 1619 Project by the New York Times. Yes, they made mistakes when they wrote part of it. Some they have fixed, some they haven't. Some they probably never will since it is in the past. And yet he doesn't delve into Fox News, NewsMaxx or any of the right wing utterly fake news sites that put up lies constantly. He could have easily just written this whole book on the lies Trump tweeted about since he joined Twitter. Instead, he skims over them.

As I decided to research him more, I looked at an interview he had done. In it he writes that the best way to stop disinformation online is to NOT share links on social media. Ummm...if not for social media, I would have never found this book and it is entirely political.

Another issue is that he works at The Wilson Center. I always like to find out who is running these think tanks because they usually have a bias. In this case, there definitely seems to be one. The Director and CEO of it is Mark Andrew Green. This is an ex-Senator from Wisconsin who just happens to be a very strong right wing Republican. The Chairman is Bill Haslem who was the governor of Tennessee and a very strong right wing Republican. And, the clincher for me is that Betsy DeVos, Trump's former U.S. Department of Education Secretary is a public member. So, as much as Steinhauer writes about how funding and schools need more money, interest in history being taught in school is waning, and people are turning to the web for information, they are part of the problem as she tried to destroy public education. I did my due diligence.

BTW, he does his own podcast but then complains about others, such as Malcolm Gladwell because Gladwell wants people to feel the emotions when he is explaining history to them. So, Gladwell should just be boring and recite dates and numbers? That is exactly what we don't need and why Gladwell, and others like him, are important: They are the people who will draw attention to history and help others discern the truth from the lies.

Also, Stephen Sorenson and Joe Coohill, who both gave this a 5 star review are both quoted in this book numerous times. They also have quotes on Steinhauer's website raving about it and how it is a must read. Having your friends give a 5-star review, when they are featured in the book, is a questionable practice at best. Especially since they didn't mention it. It seems a bit of a conflict of interest since this is supposed to be about facts and social media interactions.

Lastly, he has a cryptocurrency named after himself? Honestly, that just made me laugh.

[Katie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Before the end of Steinhauer's presentation at AASLH's 2022 Virtual conference, I had already requested his book through interlibrary loan.The presentation was a distillation of the book. A very big part of me wishes I had left well enough alone and focused solely on his 90-minute presentation and the resources he laid out in it, because I found the book difficult to get through and while it does flesh out the research that went into crafting his points as well as expand on them, it felt oddly clinical.

Perhaps this was a problem of hopes and expectations. I wanted a book that could be used as a plan for making the changes Steinhauer’s study of the social media ecosystem and history’s place within the sheer amount of content being created each day dictate our field needs to be doing, because the social web is not going to wait for professional historians to get comfortable. In some probably important ways, we’re already dreadfully behind, perhaps too far. But this wasn’t that, or if it was, I didn’t manage to hang on long enough to find out.


full review: https://faintingviolet.wordpress.com/...

[Gabriella Hoffman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Did you know there's a brewing conflict between professional history and e-history? I was unaware of prior to reading this book.

As a history minor, I found the read fascinating and thought-provoking. In the age of social media, professional historians worry about the sanctity of their profession with the advent of new media platforms and websites.

Perhaps professional historians will utilize these mediums more. A topic worth exploring and delving into.

I'll interview Jason soon.

[E · Rating 3 out of 5]

As much as I agree with the author’s central argument, it’s hard to fully enjoy this book when his tone is extremely condescending and elitist.
Yes, social media has changed how historical information is spread, and not always for the better. However, in the body of this book he discusses true public historians who have taken to twitter or other social media apps and become successful in spreading accurate and researched historical arguments and facts in such a disdainful way it leads one to almost believe he is against this. Why does he spend so much time emphasizing how these historians are “using the same tactics as non-professional historians who spread misinformation online” (in a rather disdainful way) rather than discuss more in depth how those who spread misinformation are the issue with how history is discussed online? It’s very odd, and at the end when he claims that more public historians becoming involved online is a solution to misinformation it gave me whiplash.
Of course, I agree with that and his argument that the field of professional history must adapt to the strategies used by “e-history” online. However, so much of the body of his book is spent scrutinizing those who actually do do that that it’s a bit annoying at the end when he says that they are actually doing the right thing.
Constructive criticism is one thing, but if you have an elitist tone while conveying it then your whole message is going to be lost. Obviously this author, the founder of a History Communications institute, does want to revolutionize how history is taught online. But an elitist tone to that is the very reason the average person distrusts the expertise of the historian, and what historians need to banish in order to reconnect with the public and reassure them that we are here to give them the best-researched and most accurate retelling of the past.
I enjoyed this book, but I also believe the authors points could have been conveyed in a way that made him seem less like he’s completely against e-history and more like how he actually intended them to be: an evaluation and constructive criticism of the e-history sphere and how we as historians can utilize it to spread better historical content online and to the public.

[Joe Coohill · Rating 5 out of 5]

Steinhauer has given us a wonderful analysis of the state of the study of history during this period of Web 2.0. I am a historian, and a history podcaster, so I've been looking forward to this book for a long time. It didn't disappoint. In just over 100 pages, Steinhauer explains WHY history is presented the way it is on the internet, and perhaps more importantly, why certain things go viral and what impact that virality has. Among _many_ other things, Steinhauer explains how history has become disrupted by the nature of the Web (esp 2.0). That is, what becomes viral (and believed) on the web is due more to the structure and purpose of various applications (Twitter, Insta, Facebook) and the phenomenon of "user status" that is the organizational purpose of those apps. History on the Internet is more affected by "user status" and "virality" than anything else (including veracity and professional research). These insights alone help historians (professionals and hobbyists) understand what we need to do with history on the web, and remind us that we must remain intellectually (and technologically) nimble to handle the changes that Web 3.0 will bring. - Dr. Joseph Coohill, The Professor Buzzkill History Podcast

[Dayna Del Val · Rating 5 out of 5]

Jason Steinhauer's book History Disrupted is a canary in the coal mine-kind of book as it relates to the way that social media and other web platforms are changing the way we think about, study, address teach and learn history. Jason looks at multiple platforms including Wikipedia, X, formerly known as Twitter, Instagram and more.

A substantial argument in the book is the distinction between the intrinsic value of traditional historical research, writing, teaching and more versus the extrinsic value of producing what Jason calls e-history—"discrete media products that package an element, or elements, in the past for consumption on the social Web and which try to leverage the social Web in order to gain visibility" (1).

This book is smart, well researched, thoughtful and straddles the line between being alarmist and practical. It's an important call to be conscious when consuming information labeled "History."

I heartily recommend the book; we need more books that challenge the validity of social media and the "dumbing down" of history and all the other humanities and arts, too. This is an excellent place to start.

[David Kent · Rating 5 out of 5]

While short, this book packs a lot into its pages. Steinhauer dives into a problem historians have experienced for ages but made more critical with the advent of what he calls "e-history." Historians using the time-consuming, expert-centric, intrinsically valuable model are losing ground to the social web, which uses an instantly gratifying, user-centric, extrinsically valuable model. Accuracy and learning is less important than virality. Steinhauer discusses how social media ranging from Wikipedia to Facebook to TikTok to Instagram maximize the user-centric experience - crowd sourcing, nostalgia, virality, visuality, and storytelling over scholarship and understanding. And then there is A.I., which is where the scary becomes terrifying. A book well worth reading, if nothing else, for our future survival.

David J. Kent
Author of Lincoln: The Fire of Genius
President, Lincoln Group of DC

[Abere Ullrich · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have mixed feelings about this book. While I found the history of how history on the web was produced interesting I feel like the author missed a big point that technology has always upended disciplines (printing press, radio etc). History has often been for the privleged few and as they say 'a history of the winners' where minorities or different racial communities have been left out so is it any surprise that their voices would resurface easier on the web in opposition to historians? Also as a public historian I found it odd that there was no mention of the public history profession and how it works and has the potential to adapt to fill that gap between academics and the public online.

[Julie · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a "mature" person, one thing this book helped me with was understanding the different types of social media out there. The author makes a convincing argument that the way history is recorded and interpreted is going through a vast change. The chapters followed a logical progression.

I didn't give more stars because I felt there was a lot of repetition. Also, the small print was tiring on the eyes.

[Steven Minniear · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well worth reading. Especially if you stop and think about the argument being made in each chapter. I don’t necessarily agree with many of the dire conclusions, but the explanations of how history currently plays out in cyberspace is very enlightening.

[Anton Van Der Beek · Rating 3 out of 5]

Het idee is dat geschiedenis via internet wel breder geapprecieerd wordt dan vroeger, maar dat bepaalde periodes overbehandeld worden en anderen niet. Ook de accuratesse van de geschiedschrijving loopt vaak mis, denk bijvoorbeeld aan Wikipedia. Technisch boek en halverwege gestopt.

[Erika · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thoughtful discussion of how what the author calls e-history has changed the historical profession. The weakest part, as often happens with such books, is the author's attempt to come up with some solution.

[Alberto · Rating 3 out of 5]

Buen libro para introducir al lector en el impacto que tiene tanto la Web como las plataformas sociales en las formas que recibimos, aunque también consumimos, la información acerca del pasado. Por su extensión debe entenderse como una lectura ligera sobre el tema, aunque muy provechosa.

[Debra Fairweather · Rating 5 out of 5]

A thought provoking read about the impact of social media on “history” and who or what is defining history for each of us.

[Stephen Sorensen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Captivating, original, and potent, this book provides a well-researched view on how the discipline of history has been impacted by the online era. Jason explains the contrasts between the forever soup of traditional history and the fast food of (what he calls) e-history. These two stand at odds throughout the book as he takes you through different forms of e-history and how historians have tried to cope with them.

There are 10 chapters, of which I think the longest one was about 15 pages. I can see each one of these chapters producing books of their own in the future, as their content is relevant and can illuminate how we as people produce and digest historical content.

The book is well-cited and includes endnotes, but it lacks a bibliography or a section for recommended reading.

Overall I recommend this book to everyone, no matter your age or background.