4 ms·

"The vast majority of people do not have the skills to use the internet as a source for good knowledge." And this is known how? The aristocracy considers the

"The vast majority of people do not have the skills to use the internet as a source for good knowledge." And this is known how? The aristocracy considers the people ignorant and prefers it that way, but history shows this is not always objectively so. The ideas of freedom of information, of freedom of expression are repugnant to the aristocrat (who always consider they know best), but these are founding principals of so far the most innovative and productive societies history has known. As opposed to aristocracies which are feudalism and stagnation. “Scratch a conservative and you find someone who prefers the past over any future. Scratch a liberal and find a closet aristocrat. It’s true! Liberal governments always develop into aristocracies. The bureaucracies betray the true intent of people who form such governments. Right from the first, the little people who formed the governments which promised to equalize the social burdens found themselves suddenly in the hands of bureaucratic aristocracies. Of course, all bureaucracies follow this pattern, but what a hypocrisy to find this even under a communized banner. Ahhh, well, if patterns teach me anything it’s that patterns are repeated. ― Frank Herbert, God Emperor of Dune

int_19h 9y ago
> The ideas of freedom of information, of freedom of expression are repugnant to the aristocrat (who always consider they know best), but these are founding principals of so far the most innovative and productive societies history has known. I'm not entirely sure this is true. Before Internet, what we had was mostly freedom of the press - which is to say, the freedom to spread information (or disinformation) by those with financial means to do so. This is far more free than the preceding eras of widespread censorship, where the only one spreading information (or disinformation) was the government and its agents. But it's not quite a free for all. In effect, the ability to spread information on a large scale was still restricted to the "elite", defined in financial terms. Internet, and especially social networks with their graphs, changed that. A little money, and a carefully crafted story, go a long way in terms of dispersal and effect. Big money still gives you more opportunities, but even small players can make a difference. And we've yet to see the full effect that this is going to have on our societies.
- solidsnack9000 9y ago
  So much information in the times before freedom of the press was spread without the press at all. The press made not only communication but also censorship feasible on an unprecedented scale.
  - int_19h 9y ago
    It certainly was - but it was also spread much, much slower, and filtered (by those passing it along) on every step of that way.
    - solidsnack9000 9y ago
      It was filtered by individuals but coordinated filtering was much more difficult -- a crucial distinction.

int_19h 9y ago

> The ideas of freedom of information, of freedom of expression are repugnant to the aristocrat (who always consider they know best), but these are founding principals of so far the most innovative and productive societies history has known. I'm not entirely sure this is true. Before Internet, what we had was mostly freedom of the press - which is to say, the freedom to spread information (or disinformation) by those with financial means to do so. This is far more free than the preceding eras of widespread censorship, where the only one spreading information (or disinformation) was the government and its agents. But it's not quite a free for all. In effect, the ability to spread information on a large scale was still restricted to the "elite", defined in financial terms. Internet, and especially social networks with their graphs, changed that. A little money, and a carefully crafted story, go a long way in terms of dispersal and effect. Big money still gives you more opportunities, but even small players can make a difference. And we've yet to see the full effect that this is going to have on our societies.

solidsnack9000 9y ago
So much information in the times before freedom of the press was spread without the press at all. The press made not only communication but also censorship feasible on an unprecedented scale.
- int_19h 9y ago
  It certainly was - but it was also spread much, much slower, and filtered (by those passing it along) on every step of that way.
  - solidsnack9000 9y ago
    It was filtered by individuals but coordinated filtering was much more difficult -- a crucial distinction.