2 ms·
Our American founders, who are so venerated as the architects of the country's acceptance of free speech, were not too keen on an unfettered discourse of the ma
by boh 6y ago
Our American founders, who are so venerated as the architects of the country's acceptance of free speech, were not too keen on an unfettered discourse of the masses. Coming from a time when the public’s reach was limited by expensive distribution methods and a lack of literacy, the assumption was that this free speech they proposed would be mostly limited to learned men like themselves. This similar assumption was initially made for the internet, who’s culture was primarily defined by tech savvy, college graduates. The internet was an "island of sanity" because it was limited to a relatively small group of likeminded people choosing to use it. What is happening now is the success of democracy, not its failure. For all its fanfare within our culture—very few countries, organizations, institutions have supported true democracy and its unlikely they’ll start now.
- xpe 6y agoI almost agree with the first two sentences, with this modification: > American founders ... were not too keen on an unfettered discourse of the masses I expect the founders' thinking about information sharing was largely based on their circumstances (printing presses, traditional mail service, town announcements, etc). Perhaps most founders considered them as immutable realities. Did any think of them as movable constraints? Did any think about the downstream economic and political consequences of lowering the cost of communication? I don't know off the top of my head. Have you seen any evidence of this?