Books were resisted at first: the Catholic/Jewish occupation of Europe attempted to monopolize human knowledge for centuries, locking it up in older languages and restricting its use to private networks of child molesting second-sons from noble houses (some of whom did, admittedly, record the occasional scientific discovery and/or copy classical texts for later use). Personal charisma, and the exploitation of traditions of rulership, were used to control normative messaging. This was the Dark Ages, in part caused by the retreat to castles to avoid Muslim pirates, in part caused by the need for the occupation government(s) to restrict the printed word after the invention of paper (then comparatively cheap compared to stone tablets, woven scrolls, or papyrus).
Yet, as we all know, the Dark Ages ended, and in short order, books became an acceptable vehicle for normative framing. The Reformation attempted to spread knowledge of how to read the Bible--ironically, this was done in the name of freedom, but the controllers of the Bible had planned for it to eventually be released, and a released Bible proved able to weather the storm of spiritual and technological advancement, and lay the groundwork for future profitable ventures. As literacy increased, it proved to be a useful weapon: widespread literacy became mandatory schooling, and books--once the bane of rulers who relied on physical ritual, physical force, and firsthand charisma--became a pedagogical tool to justify an even more sustainable rulership, e.g., one that no longer required flesh-encased rulers, but ideological rules.
And so books became the new standard. And things went on as before. In theory, the freedom of anyone to write, then print, and disseminate, a book, should have made these governments vulnerable, but in fact, control of publishing houses, communications standards, and public interest, made books a more powerful version of the control exercised previously. Trans-"national" ideas could be exploited through switching languages. Everything could go on as before. People were less likely to take up arms and (actually) fight over Marx or Aristotle than they were to fight over a physically embodied king or lord. Populations grew more complacent. The books taught normatives, people believed them, and then there was radio and television, which were handled like books had been. As before, everyone could theoretically use the airwaves to communicate, but banks quickly took control of those via governments, and the seemingly infinite freedom of radio and television transmission turned into an even more intrusive banking normative than before. The power of freedom became a power of greater oppression. Not only through army-enforced airwave standards, leaving programming in control of bankers and their governments, but through mockery of non-banking sources, were people able to embrace banks even more than before. The television, even more so than the book, could simultaneously be several types of the establishment as well as several conflicting types of resistance, and vicarious participation in it was living.
The internet now seems poised to shutter television and print similarly to how radio and television closed books, so to metaphorically say. Various intelligence-agency agents are clearly banking (sic) on this; the development of self-referencing public personas who mock television and newspapers as "outdated," thereby harvesting a trend building since the last technology switch but which had been completely barred by banking powers until All Of A Sudden Now (see e.g. Linking for the Future for the social aspects, and CIAdams for a more political take). News was always "fake," and the new news is equally fake, like Whole Foods (sic), astroturf political movements (sic), or popular internet commentators who spend inordinate amounts of time differentiating themselves from their ancestral television demagogues. Martin Luther, C. Wright Mills, and countless other unknowns (may they flow easy in the Spring) observed that sermons/televisions were insider lies, celebrity-reeking bankster crap; human history has been, in its every moment, stuffed full of people claiming that the message was lies and the medium corrupted; the message of escape was panned everywhere, though, until suddenly, at some point during 2016, the bank decided to co-opt all earlier resistances, and claim that TV was biased against savior Trump (the television personality), and people should start getting their news from independent internet sensations whose reach was predetermined by the same banks and deep state agencies that have spent the last century publishing nipple-slips, Rothkos, and Britain's Got Talents.
As in all earlier cycles, we're seeing the same indicia of the establishment of a new means of banking normatives: calls for nationalizing the medium, e.g., nationalizing Facebook or Twitter (which has already been completed indirectly in many parts of the world); exuberant demagogue-stoked fan support for disparaging the previous media as the cause of the sins engaged in by the fans themselves, e.g., mocking television's focus on empty crap while gobbling up empty crap on the internet (which is totally different); an older generation snootily refusing to admit that the old medium was full of crap, alongside a younger generation punkily refusing to admit that the new medium is full of the same crap. The "freedom" of the internet remains subject to the intellectual capacity of the masses to experience information in its own right, rather than to seek the reassurance of self-referencing demagogues and the groups they provide. Put ten agents with a budget into the field, drop references to them on the right sites, and voila, the internet itself is the new New Yorker, conformist and stupid, but adjusted for a new age and a new audience.