(untitled)

"Apparently, if you look at how many numbers we're likely to store in our mobile phone, or how many names we're likely to list on a social networking site, it's very rare even for city dwellers to exceed a couple of hundred. Social anthropologists delightedly point out that this is the size of the social group we'd have had to handle in a large Stone Age village. According to them, we're all still trying to cope with modern city life with a Stone Age social brain. So how do you lead and control a city or a state where most people don't know each other, and you can only personally persuade a very small percentage of the inhabitants? It's the central theme of this week's programmes, and it's been the key political question for over five thousand years, since the growth of the world's first cities and states."

>>85044 Counterpoint: you only record the numbers of the people you may have an interest to call and there isn't a million of them. When you add the family, the close and distant friends and the useful contact, you end in the hundred. To answer your question: mass medias. Street screamers, then newspapers and posters, then radio and TV and now, social medias. Why do you think Jeff telling his journo to not endorse a political party, at least not officially is "killing our democracy"? or Elon removing the social justice warrior activists from a social network is a threat to liberty?

Another trash take from the grifter department. The actual hard limit is time. You cant extend your friend group infinitely because less time/person hits the limit where the relationship degrades from friend to random person you occasionally see. Secondary things like fb got studied in past already. People with 200+ friend lists act like distribution nodes to which people with 1-20 attach. The social people with many connections distribute for the people who spend their energy elsewhere.