From the Global Village to Tribes: How Screens and Algorithms Divide Us

The Birth of TV: A Wooden Doll and a New Collective

Late January 2026 marked exactly one hundred years since a moment that changed history. In a London lab on Frith Street, John Logie Baird first publicly demonstrated television. On the small screen of his “Televisor,” a flickering, grainy image of a ventriloquist’s dummy named “Stooky Bill” appeared.

This symbolic moment defined Western mass culture for decades. However, as National Geographic notes, we should correct the myth that television was the work of a lone genius. In reality, it emerged from a “process of concurrent inventions”—the collective work of Paul Nipkow, Charles Jenkins, and various Russian and American innovators. From its very inception, television was a global, collaborative effort.

Over the last century, transmission technology evolved from mechanical disk scanning to 4K digital streams. This shift goes far beyond resolution; it fundamentally reshapes the model of social attention and, consequently, the shape of our community.

How the Global Village and Algorithms Redefined Social Attention

After World War II, television became a “true mass audience” medium, acting as a powerful social glue. Canadian communication theorist Marshall McLuhan famously called this structure the “Global Village.” He categorized media as “hot” or “cold” based on how we perceive them.

For McLuhan, television was a classic “cold medium.” Its low resolution and static nature required high viewer engagement, demanding that the audience use their imagination to complete the picture. The most crucial aspect, however, was simultaneity. Millions of people watched the exact same program at the exact same time.

The Phenomenon of Empty Streets

Whether it was the evening news in Poland watched by an entire nation or the Dallas season finale in 1980 that stopped American society in its tracks, these events created a shared cultural landscape. Community thrived through both collective invention and collective consumption.

Today, even global hits like Game of Thrones or Stranger Things lack that same unifying power. They cannot compare to the phenomenon of London’s empty streets during the 1970s broadcast of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. Our modern model of content consumption—scattered across time and driven by code—simply doesn’t foster the same brand of collective participation.

Shifting to a “Hot” Ecosystem

As we celebrate the centenary of Baird’s demonstration, that old model feels like ancient history. Streaming platforms, social media, and—above all—the personal smartphone have replaced linear television. McLuhan would describe this as an evolution from a “cold” to a “hot” medium.

Modern screens deliver such high data density—sharp images, spatial audio, personal context—that they require almost no imaginative “filling in” from the user. Instead, they demand immediate, constant reaction: a click, a like, or a comment.

The Era of Algorithmic Tribes

The social impact of this technological shift is fundamental. Instead of one vast “Global Village,” we see the emergence of countless, isolated “algorithmic tribes.” While Baird’s technology integrated society (one signal for all), the logic of modern platforms favors segmentation and fragmentation.

The Global Village and algorithms now represent two opposing forces. Modern algorithms aim to maximize user engagement by precisely tailoring content to individual preferences. In practice, this creates “filter bubbles” that reinforce existing biases.

The result? During a crisis or an election, two people searching for information often receive entirely different, conflicting sets of facts. One might see reports of a peaceful protest, while the other sees violent riots—all depending on what the algorithm deems more “engaging” for that specific user.

The Collapse of the Public Square

The shared public square that television once held together is systematically eroding. In its place, we find multiple parallel realities. This phenomenon deeply affects social life and public debate, making it nearly impossible to agree on basic facts.

Politics, science, and daily news now play out in separate worlds that rarely communicate. While the Western viewer now enjoys nearly unlimited choice—breaking the old television monopolies—it is hard to say if quantity has translated into quality. The social consequences of these technological changes suggest otherwise.

From Control to Division

One hundred years later, Baird’s wooden dummy reminds us of a complex truth. In the 20th century, television’s ability to unite millions also made it a perfect instrument for political propaganda, strengthening authoritarian regimes. Today, our digital and automated forms of communication often deepen divisions and entrench isolation.

Inventors like Baird, Nipkow, and Jenkins solved the technical problem of transmitting images. Today’s audiovisual challenges are more human and social. We must now discover how to communicate in a world dominated by Global Village and algorithms—a world that constantly assigns us to increasingly walled-off tribes.

Read the original article in Polish: Z globalnej wioski do plemion. Jak nas dzielą ekrany i algorytmy