3 ms·
Well, in socialist countries there was no index that would spell out explicitly what is strictly verboten. Ordinary people were expected to know that via hints
by MichaelMoser123 7y ago
Well, in socialist countries there was no index that would spell out explicitly what is strictly verboten. Ordinary people were expected to know that via hints and rumours. Well if the official media was calling genetics nasty names then that was a strong indicator that genetics is verboten. I guess that the media used to be more directly orchestrated.
- liability 7y agoCentralized orchestration is certainly a possibility. I think it's far from certain though, because the observed effect of uniform messaging could also be explained as emergent behaviour. Centralized coordination is probably more likely in some countries, and emergent swarming seems more likely in others. But either way, the end result is pretty similar.
- MichaelMoser123 7y agoI think it is more a difference in editorial style rather than in substance: all media outlets still have an editor who in turn has to answer to the owner of a news outlet - an author can't always write just the stuff that he wants and also get his work published, don't think it works like this. In other words I find it hard to follow the comparison of an author to a fish. Still there is definitely more freedom in a system that doesn't censor every single utterance.