5 ms·

> No, they're arguing that it much harder for a private entity (or even a group) to block distribution of information in the late 1700s. I think this is a argu

> No, they're arguing that it much harder for a private entity (or even a group) to block distribution of information in the late 1700s. I think this is a argument is incorrect. You can still print flyers and hand them out (or even mass mail them!) and none of that cabal can get close to stopping you, this argument assumes/pretends that the internet eliminated all other forms of communication, it didn't. Those methods still exist and have a larger reach than they had then. Communication is more resilient than it was in the 1700s, not less. > I'd like to know how you're going to do it. I'd make it look like an email chain and forward it to my grandma.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
I’d say the internet has obsoleted earlier forms of communication. Twitter and the use of the phone keyboard as many people’s main input device has mainstreamed a discourse of extremely short communications, “snackable content” has diminished appetite for longer writing (which is often referred to as a daunting “Long Read” even if it is merely the length of an ordinary magazine article from a few decades ago). If you examine some of the late-18th-century pamphlets created by social agitators and revolutionaries, they were often extremely dense text with elaborate argumentation. That kind of writing would not have the same impact on the public today; most of the people given such a pamphlet would bristle at having to read all that.
- eightysixfour 6y ago
  While I understand what you are saying, there was never a guarantee people would want to read what you wrote, just that you could write it.
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    For an 18th-century pamphlet writer, there was something of a guarantee that at least the people sympathetic to his cause would read the pamphlet. Today, even few among the target audience would read such writing, simply because internet communications have made it seem “too long”.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > I’d say the internet has obsoleted earlier forms of communication. Well, given that I've seen Devin Nunes on Fox News arguing about how it is now impossible for Republicans to communicate, you aren't alone. On the other hand, it clearly is possible to get messages out other than via venues controlled by the tech firms at issue.
filoeleven 6y ago
Yes, word-of-mouth still exists and is more robust than ever. Blocked by Twitter? The link to to your diatribe can still be shared there. If that link gets blocked? That’s more unlikely, but you can add another step of indirection and you’re effectively unblockable, especially if any news site links to the original.
edbob 6y ago
In the 1700's, people would actually read your flyers. It was relatively hot tech at the time, basically the equivalent of posting on Facebook or Twitter. You can still print flyers, but essentially no one is going to read them when there are dozens of more engaging mediums readily available.
harimau777 6y ago
The scale of communication has changed. There are simply too many people in major cities for handing out fliers to have an impact.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago

I’d say the internet has obsoleted earlier forms of communication. Twitter and the use of the phone keyboard as many people’s main input device has mainstreamed a discourse of extremely short communications, “snackable content” has diminished appetite for longer writing (which is often referred to as a daunting “Long Read” even if it is merely the length of an ordinary magazine article from a few decades ago). If you examine some of the late-18th-century pamphlets created by social agitators and revolutionaries, they were often extremely dense text with elaborate argumentation. That kind of writing would not have the same impact on the public today; most of the people given such a pamphlet would bristle at having to read all that.

eightysixfour 6y ago
While I understand what you are saying, there was never a guarantee people would want to read what you wrote, just that you could write it.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  For an 18th-century pamphlet writer, there was something of a guarantee that at least the people sympathetic to his cause would read the pamphlet. Today, even few among the target audience would read such writing, simply because internet communications have made it seem “too long”.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> I’d say the internet has obsoleted earlier forms of communication. Well, given that I've seen Devin Nunes on Fox News arguing about how it is now impossible for Republicans to communicate, you aren't alone. On the other hand, it clearly is possible to get messages out other than via venues controlled by the tech firms at issue.

filoeleven 6y ago

Yes, word-of-mouth still exists and is more robust than ever. Blocked by Twitter? The link to to your diatribe can still be shared there. If that link gets blocked? That’s more unlikely, but you can add another step of indirection and you’re effectively unblockable, especially if any news site links to the original.

edbob 6y ago

In the 1700's, people would actually read your flyers. It was relatively hot tech at the time, basically the equivalent of posting on Facebook or Twitter. You can still print flyers, but essentially no one is going to read them when there are dozens of more engaging mediums readily available.

harimau777 6y ago

The scale of communication has changed. There are simply too many people in major cities for handing out fliers to have an impact.