3 ms·

Those ideas were still subject to a much greater level of peer review before they could be redistributed. You couldn't get a broadsheet or pamphlet in front of

Those ideas were still subject to a much greater level of peer review before they could be redistributed. You couldn't get a broadsheet or pamphlet in front of millions of eyes without the implicit approval of tens of thousands of voluntary distributors.

smacktoward 7y ago
You keep saying "peer review" but I'm not sure how it applies here. The main way information was distributed in the era of the Federalist Papers was through newspapers, and at the time newspapers were almost entirely enterprises set up by political activists to advance the line of their particular faction. The Federalist Papers were written by several prominent members of the Federalists (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party), a movement that would go on to become the first real American political party, and published anonymously in Federalist-leaning newspapers. There was no "peer review" in the sense of any of their opponents reviewing them before publication. If you want a good sense for what newspapering was like in the early American republic, I highly recommend Richard Rosenfeld's book American Aurora (https://www.amazon.com/American-Aurora-Democratic-Republican-Suppressed-Beginnings/dp/0312194374 https://www.amazon.com/American-Aurora-Democratic-Republican...), the story of a newspaper that opposed the Federalists and the price its editor paid for that opposition.
- commandlinefan 7y ago
  > There was no "peer review" Further, social media posts like Tweets are _more_ “peer reviewed” than old-timey revolutionary pamphlets: you don’t have much reach on the platform unless people are re-tweeting and following you, so only popular (though not necessarily good) posts get any distribution.
harimau777 7y ago
How might we change/regulate internet communication in such a way that someone could anonymously get a message out on the scale of a pamphlet but not on the scale of a tweet or social media post? Stated another way, my concern is that any changes to free speech might overcorrect and result in it being difficult to anonymously get an unpopular message out to even a modest audience.

smacktoward 7y ago

You keep saying "peer review" but I'm not sure how it applies here. The main way information was distributed in the era of the Federalist Papers was through newspapers, and at the time newspapers were almost entirely enterprises set up by political activists to advance the line of their particular faction. The Federalist Papers were written by several prominent members of the Federalists (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party), a movement that would go on to become the first real American political party, and published anonymously in Federalist-leaning newspapers. There was no "peer review" in the sense of any of their opponents reviewing them before publication. If you want a good sense for what newspapering was like in the early American republic, I highly recommend Richard Rosenfeld's book American Aurora (https://www.amazon.com/American-Aurora-Democratic-Republican-Suppressed-Beginnings/dp/0312194374 https://www.amazon.com/American-Aurora-Democratic-Republican...), the story of a newspaper that opposed the Federalists and the price its editor paid for that opposition.

commandlinefan 7y ago
> There was no "peer review" Further, social media posts like Tweets are _more_ “peer reviewed” than old-timey revolutionary pamphlets: you don’t have much reach on the platform unless people are re-tweeting and following you, so only popular (though not necessarily good) posts get any distribution.

harimau777 7y ago

How might we change/regulate internet communication in such a way that someone could anonymously get a message out on the scale of a pamphlet but not on the scale of a tweet or social media post? Stated another way, my concern is that any changes to free speech might overcorrect and result in it being difficult to anonymously get an unpopular message out to even a modest audience.