4 ms·

Sounds like how people argue against printing press in 15th century. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110119/05022912725/fifteenth-century-technopanic-about

Sounds like how people argue against printing press in 15th century. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110119/05022912725/fifteenth-century-technopanic-about-horrors-printing-press.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110119/05022912725/fifte...

jorprp93j 7y ago
I dunno seems like a very different scale involved when the other side of the world can spoon feed me and my neighbors our opinions with complete anonymity Oh sure the syntax may be similar The semantics embedded within our current context of FB & 1700s paranoia over invention itself? One seems ridiculously easy to game and gain global advantage. The other influenced some neighbors. We’re at a point where the general public is being enraged by goobers who want carnage, and moderates who want to chew all the resources up, while putting on a happy face, ignore the consequences. Not much of a third option allowed when that majority controls the wealth and can easily distribute the most visible argument. In a free market of ideas one, where we weigh all the options equally, one might think socialism would then get as much airtime. But you know fuck that cause iPhones and self driving cars are so cool, whatever if it destroys the species. The mainstream right and left are just arguing how hard we push on the gas pedal.
vanderZwan 7y ago
I don't see it, can you elaborate? If this was a critique of blogging I could see a connection, or if the monk was criticizing people who owned printers for only producing the most inflammatory pieces at the expense of all other content, but it is neither as far as I can see.
Barrin92 7y ago
well the concern about the monks was misplaced but the printing press actually kickstarted an entire century of schisms and religious wars and unless you're willing to just write that degree of disruption off as a minor detail the critics might have had a point. Obviously throwing the press away would have been both impossible and inadvisable, but clearly there's a lesson here about the potential dangers of uncontrolled mass amplification of voice in a society that wasn't ready for it.
INGELRII 7y ago
If printing press in the 15th century is the analogy, we will have Thirty Years' War ahead of us. Martin Luther was one of the first political troublemakers in the printing press era. He used printed pamphlets to spread his message. His use of language was extremely hateful and vulgar. Martin Luther would have been perfect for Twitter or FB. ... Martin Luther @MartinLuther >“A natural donkey, which carries sacks to the mill and eats thistles, can judge you – indeed, all creatures can! For a donkey knows it is a donkey and not a cow. A stone knows it is a stone; water is water, and so on through all the creatures. But you mad asses do not know you are asses.” Martin Luther @MartinLuther >“May God punish you, I say, you shameless, barefaced liar, devil’s mouthpiece, who dares to spit out, before God, before all the angels, before the dear sun, before all the world, your devil’s filth.” Martin Luther @MartinLuther >For you are an excellent person, as skillful, clever, and versed in Holy Scripture as a cow in a walnut tree or a sow on a harp.” Martin Luther @MartinLuther >“You are a crude ass, and an ass you will remain!” Martin Luther @MartinLuther >You are desperate, thorough arch-rascals, murderers, traitors, liars, the very scum of all the most evil people on earth. You are full of all the worst devils in hell – full, full, and so full that you can do nothing but vomit, throw, and blow out devils!” More: http://ergofabulous.org/luther/ http://ergofabulous.org/luther/
- vanderZwan 7y ago
  See also Clay Shirky's thoughts on this topic[0] > So, what happens when a medium suddenly puts a lot of new ideas into circulation? Now, this isn't just a contemporaneous question. This is something we've faced several times over the last few centuries. When the telegraph came along, it was clear that it was going to globalize the news industry. What would this lead to? Well, obviously, it would lead to world peace. The television, a medium that allowed us not just to hear but see, literally see, what was going on elsewhere in the world, what would this lead to? World peace. (Laughter) The telephone? You guessed it: world peace. Sorry for the spoiler alert, but no world peace. Not yet. Even the printing press, even the printing press was assumed to be a tool that was going to enforce Catholic intellectual hegemony across Europe. Instead, what we got was Martin Luther's 95 Theses, the Protestant Reformation, and, you know, the Thirty Years' War. > All right, so what all of these predictions of world peace got right is that when a lot of new ideas suddenly come into circulation, it changes society. What they got exactly wrong was what happens next. The more ideas there are in circulation, the more ideas there are for any individual to disagree with. More media always means more arguing. That's what happens when the media's space expands. And yet, when we look back on the printing press in the early years, we like what happened. We are a pro-printing press society. We'll adapt to the new medium of the internet. Hopefully without a 30 years war though. [0] https://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_the_internet_will_one_day_transform_government/transcript https://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_the_internet_will_...
Udik 7y ago
And I'm pretty sure that newspapers and radio are partly responsible for the establishment of dictatorships in the 20th century.

jorprp93j 7y ago

I dunno seems like a very different scale involved when the other side of the world can spoon feed me and my neighbors our opinions with complete anonymity Oh sure the syntax may be similar The semantics embedded within our current context of FB & 1700s paranoia over invention itself? One seems ridiculously easy to game and gain global advantage. The other influenced some neighbors. We’re at a point where the general public is being enraged by goobers who want carnage, and moderates who want to chew all the resources up, while putting on a happy face, ignore the consequences. Not much of a third option allowed when that majority controls the wealth and can easily distribute the most visible argument. In a free market of ideas one, where we weigh all the options equally, one might think socialism would then get as much airtime. But you know fuck that cause iPhones and self driving cars are so cool, whatever if it destroys the species. The mainstream right and left are just arguing how hard we push on the gas pedal.

vanderZwan 7y ago

I don't see it, can you elaborate? If this was a critique of blogging I could see a connection, or if the monk was criticizing people who owned printers for only producing the most inflammatory pieces at the expense of all other content, but it is neither as far as I can see.

Barrin92 7y ago

well the concern about the monks was misplaced but the printing press actually kickstarted an entire century of schisms and religious wars and unless you're willing to just write that degree of disruption off as a minor detail the critics might have had a point. Obviously throwing the press away would have been both impossible and inadvisable, but clearly there's a lesson here about the potential dangers of uncontrolled mass amplification of voice in a society that wasn't ready for it.

INGELRII 7y ago

If printing press in the 15th century is the analogy, we will have Thirty Years' War ahead of us. Martin Luther was one of the first political troublemakers in the printing press era. He used printed pamphlets to spread his message. His use of language was extremely hateful and vulgar. Martin Luther would have been perfect for Twitter or FB. ... Martin Luther @MartinLuther >“A natural donkey, which carries sacks to the mill and eats thistles, can judge you – indeed, all creatures can! For a donkey knows it is a donkey and not a cow. A stone knows it is a stone; water is water, and so on through all the creatures. But you mad asses do not know you are asses.” Martin Luther @MartinLuther >“May God punish you, I say, you shameless, barefaced liar, devil’s mouthpiece, who dares to spit out, before God, before all the angels, before the dear sun, before all the world, your devil’s filth.” Martin Luther @MartinLuther >For you are an excellent person, as skillful, clever, and versed in Holy Scripture as a cow in a walnut tree or a sow on a harp.” Martin Luther @MartinLuther >“You are a crude ass, and an ass you will remain!” Martin Luther @MartinLuther >You are desperate, thorough arch-rascals, murderers, traitors, liars, the very scum of all the most evil people on earth. You are full of all the worst devils in hell – full, full, and so full that you can do nothing but vomit, throw, and blow out devils!” More: http://ergofabulous.org/luther/ http://ergofabulous.org/luther/

vanderZwan 7y ago
See also Clay Shirky's thoughts on this topic[0] > So, what happens when a medium suddenly puts a lot of new ideas into circulation? Now, this isn't just a contemporaneous question. This is something we've faced several times over the last few centuries. When the telegraph came along, it was clear that it was going to globalize the news industry. What would this lead to? Well, obviously, it would lead to world peace. The television, a medium that allowed us not just to hear but see, literally see, what was going on elsewhere in the world, what would this lead to? World peace. (Laughter) The telephone? You guessed it: world peace. Sorry for the spoiler alert, but no world peace. Not yet. Even the printing press, even the printing press was assumed to be a tool that was going to enforce Catholic intellectual hegemony across Europe. Instead, what we got was Martin Luther's 95 Theses, the Protestant Reformation, and, you know, the Thirty Years' War. > All right, so what all of these predictions of world peace got right is that when a lot of new ideas suddenly come into circulation, it changes society. What they got exactly wrong was what happens next. The more ideas there are in circulation, the more ideas there are for any individual to disagree with. More media always means more arguing. That's what happens when the media's space expands. And yet, when we look back on the printing press in the early years, we like what happened. We are a pro-printing press society. We'll adapt to the new medium of the internet. Hopefully without a 30 years war though. [0] https://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_the_internet_will_one_day_transform_government/transcript https://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_the_internet_will_...

Udik 7y ago

And I'm pretty sure that newspapers and radio are partly responsible for the establishment of dictatorships in the 20th century.