5 ms·

Proto-internet trolls: Struensee and press freedom in 18th century Denmark

37 points by Pausanias 8y ago

peter303 8y ago
These played a role during the Enlightment, American and European revolutions. A person of strong political views and middle class means could write, publish and distribute an anonymous political pamphlet. Establishment governments often didnt like this and hunt down and destroyed them.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- all2 8y ago
  This is, in part, why the USA constitution calls out freedom of the press (right after freedom of speech).
mongol 8y ago
The book referenced, Swedish title "Livläkarens besök", is one of the best I have read. Reviews do not seem to agree entirely through. On Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Royal-Physicians-Visit-Olov-Enquist/dp/1585671967 https://www.amazon.com/Royal-Physicians-Visit-Olov-Enquist/d...
- dmlorenzetti 8y ago
  Enquist is one of my favorite authors, and Royal Physician's Visit among the many reasons why. That said, I have almost stopped recommending his work to others, as it seems to be hit-and-miss. Nobody I know hates his work, but nobody takes to him quite the way I have. Royal Physician is fairly conventional in structure and tone, but Enquist's more personal work -- the work that feels like it comes from his deep interior life, like Downfall, and Captain Nemo's Library -- seem even harder for a lot of people to get into.
FlowNote 8y ago
The printing press was subsidized by the Catholic Church as a way of reducing costs and increasing spread of their primary asset: the Bible. They didn't realize this would drive down startup costs of presses by creating more press techniques and technicians looking to acquire new customers. With Church backing, the bar-to-entry for spreading information dropped until anyone could spread information, including anti-Church factions such as the Protestants. This did not end up well for the Church. The same is true for America, their obsession with spreading democracy, and the transistor AKA the American Printing Press. Once information propagation becomes cheap, noise floods everything, and trolling is the only effective way to create lasting context.
kingofhdds 8y ago
The piece is interesting, but author's conclusions left very strange aftertaste. So there was a king with psychiatric problems, and his doctor who, abusing influence over his patient, usurped powers, and made a kid with the queen. And when aforementioned doctor decreed freedom of press, people of Denmark immediately started to express their dissatisfaction with the weird political situation. And the author calls it depressing, not constructive, and them proto-internet-trolls. Seriously?
- nowarninglabel 8y ago
  I believe the subtle point is that Struensee did these actions for the good of the people, only for the people to then use these new tools against him. I'm not sure we know of Struensee's motivations, but we can see that he advocated for and temporarily obtained some outcomes that can be seen as almost universally good for the people. Regardless, maybe one takeaway can be, just because you have given your life towards something good for others, don't expect to be thanked.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    Giving the people freedom of the press was good for the people? Probably. Having a kid with the queen was good for the people? Probably not. So, was the criticism for giving them freedom of the press? Or for having the kid with the queen? Or was it for using his position as a doctor to put himself in political power in the first place?
    - oh_sigh 8y ago
      Having a kid with the queen seems neutral, especially if the alternative is for a severely mentally ill man to be the father.
      - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        The queen having kids that didn't come from the king is capable of setting off a civil war once the king dies and someone has to succeed him. That's not neutral for the people.

37 points by Pausanias 8y ago

These played a role during the Enlightment, American and European revolutions. A person of strong political views and middle class means could write, publish and distribute an anonymous political pamphlet. Establishment governments often didnt like this and hunt down and destroyed them.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
all2 8y ago
This is, in part, why the USA constitution calls out freedom of the press (right after freedom of speech).

mongol 8y ago

The book referenced, Swedish title "Livläkarens besök", is one of the best I have read. Reviews do not seem to agree entirely through. On Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Royal-Physicians-Visit-Olov-Enquist/dp/1585671967 https://www.amazon.com/Royal-Physicians-Visit-Olov-Enquist/d...

dmlorenzetti 8y ago
Enquist is one of my favorite authors, and Royal Physician's Visit among the many reasons why. That said, I have almost stopped recommending his work to others, as it seems to be hit-and-miss. Nobody I know hates his work, but nobody takes to him quite the way I have. Royal Physician is fairly conventional in structure and tone, but Enquist's more personal work -- the work that feels like it comes from his deep interior life, like Downfall, and Captain Nemo's Library -- seem even harder for a lot of people to get into.

FlowNote 8y ago

The printing press was subsidized by the Catholic Church as a way of reducing costs and increasing spread of their primary asset: the Bible. They didn't realize this would drive down startup costs of presses by creating more press techniques and technicians looking to acquire new customers. With Church backing, the bar-to-entry for spreading information dropped until anyone could spread information, including anti-Church factions such as the Protestants. This did not end up well for the Church. The same is true for America, their obsession with spreading democracy, and the transistor AKA the American Printing Press. Once information propagation becomes cheap, noise floods everything, and trolling is the only effective way to create lasting context.

kingofhdds 8y ago

The piece is interesting, but author's conclusions left very strange aftertaste. So there was a king with psychiatric problems, and his doctor who, abusing influence over his patient, usurped powers, and made a kid with the queen. And when aforementioned doctor decreed freedom of press, people of Denmark immediately started to express their dissatisfaction with the weird political situation. And the author calls it depressing, not constructive, and them proto-internet-trolls. Seriously?

nowarninglabel 8y ago
I believe the subtle point is that Struensee did these actions for the good of the people, only for the people to then use these new tools against him. I'm not sure we know of Struensee's motivations, but we can see that he advocated for and temporarily obtained some outcomes that can be seen as almost universally good for the people. Regardless, maybe one takeaway can be, just because you have given your life towards something good for others, don't expect to be thanked.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  Giving the people freedom of the press was good for the people? Probably. Having a kid with the queen was good for the people? Probably not. So, was the criticism for giving them freedom of the press? Or for having the kid with the queen? Or was it for using his position as a doctor to put himself in political power in the first place?
  - oh_sigh 8y ago
    Having a kid with the queen seems neutral, especially if the alternative is for a severely mentally ill man to be the father.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      The queen having kids that didn't come from the king is capable of setting off a civil war once the king dies and someone has to succeed him. That's not neutral for the people.