3 ms·

I was responding to this: | This is truly the dark age of the information era. and this: | popular platforms are pressured to not do business with you Both

I was responding to this: | This is truly the dark age of the information era. and this: | popular platforms are pressured to not do business with you Both implies greater forces at play than a small, small minority of voices on twitter making authors feel bad. Social media gave everyone a voice, what I don't understand is why anyone is surprised that there are vocal micro-minorities like this. Years ago, they wrote a letter to the editor or the television station. Now they write it on Twitter. That's not a dark age, and the opportunity to publish is much, much better now than it has ever been in the modern era. | She did, likely after she was told what would happen otherwise. Do you have any evidence of this or are you just saying it?

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
"| She did, likely after she was told what would happen otherwise. Do you have any evidence of this or are you just saying it? " If you are asking if I have inside information and maybe personal email between author and medium. I do not. It would be odd if I did. What I do have, however, is rather vivid memories of the same kind of idiocy working in practice in the old country, the only difference being that it was done under barely hidden threat from the state. All I have is instinct and here it is flashing bright red, because there are people in US right now, who are happily accepting this not only acceptable, but necessary ( not completely unlike communism era writers writing morality plays about the importance of writing things that are not upsetting to the system ). "I was responding to this: | This is truly the dark age of the information era. and this: | popular platforms are pressured to not do business with you Both implies greater forces at play than a small, small minority of voices on twitter making authors feel bad. Social media gave everyone a voice, what I don't understand is why anyone is surprised that there are vocal micro-minorities like this. Years ago, they wrote a letter to the editor or the television station. Now they write it on Twitter. That's not a dark age, and the opportunity to publish is much, much better now than it has ever been in the modern era." If dissenting voices are silenced, it absolutely bears comparison to a dark age of information. You cannot excuse it. Nor should you.
- heterodoxxed 6y ago
  | This is truly the dark age of the information era. I think statements like this are hysterical and ahistorical. The amount of actual censorship and the way moral panics occurred throughout history make twitter dogpiling look absolutely quaint in comparison. I don't disagree with Kazuo Ishiguro one bit, but I think all it means is that authors need to get thicker skin, because unlike the past, they can read their readers opinions.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    "I think statements like this are hysterical and ahistorical." I find this line of defense interesting. Can you elaborate a little further, because I would want to avoid putting words in your mouth? Are suggesting that the overall volume of censorship is lower so it can be ignored and explained away? I find your perspective somewhat fascinating.
    - heterodoxxed 6y ago
      Anyone who thinks there is more censorship today can only believe that by ignoring the vastly greater censorship that has historically existed.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago

"| She did, likely after she was told what would happen otherwise. Do you have any evidence of this or are you just saying it? " If you are asking if I have inside information and maybe personal email between author and medium. I do not. It would be odd if I did. What I do have, however, is rather vivid memories of the same kind of idiocy working in practice in the old country, the only difference being that it was done under barely hidden threat from the state. All I have is instinct and here it is flashing bright red, because there are people in US right now, who are happily accepting this not only acceptable, but necessary ( not completely unlike communism era writers writing morality plays about the importance of writing things that are not upsetting to the system ). "I was responding to this: | This is truly the dark age of the information era. and this: | popular platforms are pressured to not do business with you Both implies greater forces at play than a small, small minority of voices on twitter making authors feel bad. Social media gave everyone a voice, what I don't understand is why anyone is surprised that there are vocal micro-minorities like this. Years ago, they wrote a letter to the editor or the television station. Now they write it on Twitter. That's not a dark age, and the opportunity to publish is much, much better now than it has ever been in the modern era." If dissenting voices are silenced, it absolutely bears comparison to a dark age of information. You cannot excuse it. Nor should you.

heterodoxxed 6y ago
| This is truly the dark age of the information era. I think statements like this are hysterical and ahistorical. The amount of actual censorship and the way moral panics occurred throughout history make twitter dogpiling look absolutely quaint in comparison. I don't disagree with Kazuo Ishiguro one bit, but I think all it means is that authors need to get thicker skin, because unlike the past, they can read their readers opinions.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  "I think statements like this are hysterical and ahistorical." I find this line of defense interesting. Can you elaborate a little further, because I would want to avoid putting words in your mouth? Are suggesting that the overall volume of censorship is lower so it can be ignored and explained away? I find your perspective somewhat fascinating.
  - heterodoxxed 6y ago
    Anyone who thinks there is more censorship today can only believe that by ignoring the vastly greater censorship that has historically existed.