4 ms·
100 pamphleteers probably couldn't reach the same number of people as 1 single person can do today without the slightest peer-review of any sort. And there are
by igammarays 7y ago
100 pamphleteers probably couldn't reach the same number of people as 1 single person can do today without the slightest peer-review of any sort. And there are certain things that are hard to imagine could ever be spread by pamphlet: child pornography for instance.
- commandlinefan 7y agoThe pamphleteers reached nearly every single living human in their time and successfully altered the entire course of human history, in a way that was considered apocalyptic at the time. Free speech in the "say what's on your mind on the internet" sense is EXACTLY what the first amendment was drafted for.
- igammarays 7y agoPoint taken. However my argument about the the quality of the content of the speech still holds. Sure, pamphleteers could reach the ends of the earth, but the they couldn't publish anything they wanted. Child pornography could not spread by pamphlet.
- SamBam 7y agoI don't see why you keep bringing up child pornography. Facebook and Twitter don't allow people to spread it, and no one is suggesting they should. It's entirely a strawman. As for whether "one person" currently has more reach that the pamphleteers did, I also disagree. A pamphlet is only spread if people are agreeing with its content. Likewise a tweet or facebook post. A billion people post inane content every day. We see a microscopic fraction of it. That is an equivalent form of "peer review" as your pamphlet distributors.
- DuskStar 7y agoNeither could info on birth control or abortions (or in fact most things we'd consider part of "sex ed" today), but we generally regard those restrictions as having been a bad idea.