Accurate communication underlies human connection. It allows people to share knowledge, express emotions, and build relationships across time and space. As communication methods evolved from oral storytelling to print, radio, television, and digital media, so did our ability to connect with others.
The shift from auditory and text-based communication to visual and descriptive formats has been particularly transformative, making information more accessible to those who cannot see or hear. Innovations such as Braille, sign language, audiobooks, and screen readers have expanded access to education and information, reducing barriers to social participation. As communication has become more inclusive, it has fostered greater empathy and understanding, enabling people to engage with diverse perspectives and, ultimately, become more compassionate toward one another.
Birth year ranges may have defined generations, but these ranges are often variable and oversimplified. Instead of relying on birth years, I want to suggest considering generations by the dominant forms of communication available during childhood. This approach reflects how changes in technology and media shape how individuals learn about and interpret the world.
Why Communication Defines Generations More Than Birth Year
1. Life Experiences Are Not Uniform Within Birth Year Ranges
Cultural and technological shifts do not happen overnight. A person born in 1964 (the last year of the Baby Boomer cutoff) might share more in common with someone born in 1946 than with someone born in 1965, even if the latter is only a year apart. Generational experiences depend on exposure to societal changes, such as the expansion of television, the spread of personal computers, or the rise of social media.
Access to communication technology varies by household and region. Children raised in homes without television in the 1960s would have had a different cultural experience from those who grew up watching nightly broadcasts of major world events, such as the Moon landing or the Vietnam War coverage. A child without home internet access in the early 2000s would have encountered the digital world in a fundamentally different way than their peers who had unrestricted access to early social media platforms.
2. Generational Labels Are Geographically and Socially Inconsistent
Media and technology adoption varies across different regions and social classes. Research shows that people growing up in rural areas often have delayed access to new communication technologies. For example, high-speed internet adoption in rural parts of Australia, Canada, and the United States significantly lagged behind urban centres well into the 2010s, limiting early digital exposure for many children.
Different countries follow different generational trajectories. In developing economies, mobile phone adoption leapfrogged landlines, creating a unique communication experience for younger generations. A child in sub-Saharan Africa in the 2000s may have first accessed the internet via a mobile device, while a child in North America in the same decade was might have had a home computer.
3. Defining Generations by Major World Events Is Too Vague
Historical events impact different age groups in different ways. While events like the 9/11 attacks, the 2008 financial crisis, or the COVID-19 pandemic shaped global consciousness, a person’s age at the time of the event determines how they process and remember it. As a 13-year-old experiencing 9/11 primarily through television broadcasts and school discussions, my classmates and I were horrified and had a very different understanding of the world compared than an adult who was actively engaging in political discourse or working in affected industries.
The medium through which people receive information about these events matters. A study on media influence found that the way events are reported, through print journalism, television broadcasts, or social media, significantly impacts how people interpret and emotionally respond to global crises. For instance, younger generations (such as myself and siblings) experienced the COVID-19 pandemic largely through real-time social media updates, while older generations (such as my parents) relied more on television news.
Why Misinformation Does Not Define a Generation
Some argue that misinformation is the defining trait of today’s media landscape. Instead of defining a “Misinformation Generation,” it is more accurate to examine how different generations engage with misinformation based on their dominant communication mediums.
1. Misinformation Has Always Existed
Misinformation is not a new phenomenon. It has adapted to each communication medium throughout history:
Storied Societies: Myths and legends can reinforced specific social orders and community beliefs, distorting real historical events. These stories are a positive influence as well: Every society has taught their positive lessons and actions to their children through stories.
Print Era: Propaganda and misinformation was widespread, from the purposeful misrepresentations of religious conflicts of the Protestant Reformation to wartime misinformation campaigns. Print also became a way for individuals and communities to reach the level of education once exclusive to the highest level of wealth, and use their understanding to benefit others.
Radio & Television: Governments and corporations used mass media to shape public perception, such as the role of radio broadcasts in wartime propaganda and television’s influence in shaping political elections. However, it also allowed for the individual and community voices to be heard across cities, countries, and continents which drives empathy and connection.
Digital Age: Social media algorithms amplify misinformation, allowing falsehoods to spread more rapidly than ever before. It also allows for the amplified spread of correct information, and the ability of people who once did not have a voice to be heard.
2. Active vs. Passive Misinformation: Both Are Harmful
Active Misinformation is deliberately created to mislead people, such as deepfake videos, false political narratives, and intentionally fabricated news articles.
Passive Misinformation spreads unintentionally, often when people share incorrect information without verifying its accuracy.
While active misinformation is generally seen as more harmful due to its intentional nature, passive misinformation can also lead to widespread public harm, particularly in areas like health misinformation. For instance, a lack of information about reproductive health can and has lead to horrific actions being taken against women, and their bodily and reproductive rights.
Conclusion
Defining generations by dominant communication mediums rather than birth years offers a more precise way to understand societal change. Communication-based definitions reflect how people absorb, process, and share information, shaping their worldview in ways that are deeply tied to technological and cultural shifts.
Communication is the foundation of human connection, and its evolution has made knowledge more inclusive, interactive, and widely accessible. While misinformation exists in every era, it is the medium, not the generation, that determines how misinformation spreads and how people engage with it. By recognizing these patterns, we can move beyond simplistic generational stereotypes and develop a more nuanced understanding of how technology shapes the human experience.
This approach encourages us to focus not on dividing generations but on understanding the forces that unite and shape us across time. If we acknowledge that the way we communicate is what defines our shared history, we can better navigate the present and prepare for the future of human connection.
First Published: 24-03-2025
I Am Who I Make Myself 