6 ms·

Has mediating access to information been the defining tool of control for civilizations? Maybe in tyrannical, despotic societies that is true, but those don't a

Has mediating access to information been the defining tool of control for civilizations? Maybe in tyrannical, despotic societies that is true, but those don't allow Twitter today via firewalls, so that's mostly a moot point in this thread. I'd say the sword and the coin have both been far more controlling than limited information spread. What of free society? Is the government of the USA, UK, or other "enlightened" societies throughout history relying upon censorship and denial of information? I think they're moreso allowing moneyed interests and plutocracy to have lobbying and backdoor dealings, they can easily ignore the public square most of the time. I just don't see Twitter piercing the armor of entrenched interests that well. In contrast, I do see it degrading and toxifying democratic discourse, making us less resilient and more divided. That's anti-thetical to a free society in my view.

slowmovintarget 5y ago
> Beneath the rule of men entirely great > The pen is mightier than the sword.
- oblio 5y ago
  That's easy to write when you're not on the wrong end of a Mongolian bow or a T-34 gun barrel.
  - kamaal 5y ago
    Use the pen to design a better sword(missiles, f-35s etc), that's the point, not writing novels and reddit threads with a pen.
    - oblio 5y ago
      Your interpretation doesn't line up with the original quote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pen_is_mightier_than_the_sword https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pen_is_mightier_than_the_s... The original quote is about persuasion being better than violence.
      - kamaal 5y ago
        Yeah, you need to be powerful enough to persuade, thats the point.
  - slowmovintarget 5y ago
    The point of the original quote was about people with too much control over others already. In which case, a few strokes of a pen could condemn thousands to misery or death. In that sense, there was no need to be aiming a bow at a single individual. The original quote wasn't about speech, it was about excessive control.
    - oblio 5y ago
      Wikipedia, at least, doesn't favor your interpretation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pen_is_mightier_than_the_sword https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pen_is_mightier_than_the_s... The original quote is about persuasion being better than violence.
trevyn 5y ago
1) “Those in power” does not mean only the government. 2) Mediating access to information in Western societies is now in a much more advanced state than brute censorship.
mjamil 5y ago
I disagree that "enlightened" societies don't rely on mediating access to information as the defining tool of control; our difference of opinion is perhaps that you think of this purely as limiting information spread, where I think of it also as shaping the information for their own ends. The governments of the UK and the USA, to state two examples you mentioned, have used these tools effectively as propaganda channels repeatedly to sell their vision of armed conflict. The second Iraq war wasn't that long ago. I'll make a tangentially related argument: Starting with the printing press, and through the advent of telephone, radio, television, and now the Internet (mainly via the Web), controlling messaging via these media (or controlling these media directly at times) has been as much a tool of control for those in power in democratic societies as in autocratic ones.
- smsm42 5y ago
  USA is literally founded on this principle: Congress shall make no law /.../ abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press And while it talks about the Congress, it is clear why the founders considered it to be necessary - the principal value of the free and unabridged speech to forming a free society is tremendous. True, in an armed conflict, speech has been used as a weapon, and it is also true that the reality of US government has often fallen short of the noble ideals laying at its foundation. But until recently, it has been a widely recognized principle that unmediated and un-gated access to speech and expression - be it audio, printed, electronic or any other means of speech - is a vital cornerstone of a modern free society. Unfortunately, recently certain part of political and cultural establishment decided they want to "move past" these antiquated ideas of equality and appoint themselves as gatekeepers of speech - "for our common benefit and the benefit of the society", of which they are but selfless servants, to be sure. The new Twitter CEO is, unfortunately, one of these people, and has unashamedly promoted this approach personally. Thus, we can expect only redoubling of effort from his side to suppress and remove speech that he considers "harmful" and discussion of topics he considers not up for discussion. Fortunately, there's an easy way to deal with it. As David Chappelle noted recently, "twitter is not a real place" - and doesn't need to be elevated to the position of society's gatekeeper, but rather demoted to society's cesspool. They proved themselves not up to the task to maintain robust free discourse platform - let them rot in their own bubble.
salt-thrower 5y ago
> What of free society? Is the government of the USA, UK, or other "enlightened" societies throughout history relying upon censorship and denial of information? I think they're moreso allowing moneyed interests and plutocracy to have lobbying and backdoor dealings, they can easily ignore the public square most of the time. This is definitely part of the picture. To add to this, I'll refer to Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky. "Propaganda" does still exist in modern "free societies," but it isn't overt like a 20th-century dictatorship would have been. Subtle manipulation of corporate media by monied interests to sway public opinion, combined with lobbying and corporate capture of government institutions, is more than enough to maintain the hegemony of certain narratives and power structures. I find it fascinating, and unsettling, to learn about. So in a nutshell, controlling information and mainstream media narratives is important for the modern ruling class, but it's much more subtle than overt censorship like a dictatorship would have. Which, in my view, makes it much more advanced and insidious.
mariavillosa 5y ago
>Is the government of the USA, UK, or other "enlightened" societies throughout history That sentence piques my interest, do people see the USA and UK that way? I think of Switzerland and Canada that way, for example, but my knowledge is all based on stereotypes. Maybe it depends where you're from, as the stereotypes must differ among regions.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  The USA and UK, while not perfect, are absolutely more enlightened than, say, South Sudan or Saudi Arabia.
  - mariavillosa 5y ago
    But almost all countries are more liberal than those two. My question isn't if the US and UK are the least enlightened countries in the world, but rather, if people see them as particularly enlightened among countries. Ie compared to any other random liberal country like Mexico or Czech Republic. I understand OP's point, just curious whether the examples used reflect a common perception. To me when thinking of stereotypically enlightened societies, I think of Iceland or Canada or something. The US I think of more as a business+war society, and UK seems somewhere in the middle, but much lower than the rest of Europe. This is based on nothing objective, just wondering what other people's perceptions of these places are
    - AussieWog93 5y ago
      I understood "enlightened" to mean "espousing modern values of enlightenment" - basically fostering a belief in science and reason and trying to push mankind further in terms of technological and moral progress. In this regard, both of those countries would be considered B-tier at worst.
      - mariavillosa 5y ago
        This is my perception as well. Not knocking either of those countries, just curious if they were thought to be bastions of enlightenment values.

slowmovintarget 5y ago

> Beneath the rule of men entirely great > The pen is mightier than the sword.

oblio 5y ago
That's easy to write when you're not on the wrong end of a Mongolian bow or a T-34 gun barrel.
- kamaal 5y ago
  Use the pen to design a better sword(missiles, f-35s etc), that's the point, not writing novels and reddit threads with a pen.
  - oblio 5y ago
    Your interpretation doesn't line up with the original quote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pen_is_mightier_than_the_sword https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pen_is_mightier_than_the_s... The original quote is about persuasion being better than violence.
    - kamaal 5y ago
      Yeah, you need to be powerful enough to persuade, thats the point.
- slowmovintarget 5y ago
  The point of the original quote was about people with too much control over others already. In which case, a few strokes of a pen could condemn thousands to misery or death. In that sense, there was no need to be aiming a bow at a single individual. The original quote wasn't about speech, it was about excessive control.
  - oblio 5y ago
    Wikipedia, at least, doesn't favor your interpretation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pen_is_mightier_than_the_sword https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pen_is_mightier_than_the_s... The original quote is about persuasion being better than violence.

trevyn 5y ago

1) “Those in power” does not mean only the government. 2) Mediating access to information in Western societies is now in a much more advanced state than brute censorship.

mjamil 5y ago

I disagree that "enlightened" societies don't rely on mediating access to information as the defining tool of control; our difference of opinion is perhaps that you think of this purely as limiting information spread, where I think of it also as shaping the information for their own ends. The governments of the UK and the USA, to state two examples you mentioned, have used these tools effectively as propaganda channels repeatedly to sell their vision of armed conflict. The second Iraq war wasn't that long ago. I'll make a tangentially related argument: Starting with the printing press, and through the advent of telephone, radio, television, and now the Internet (mainly via the Web), controlling messaging via these media (or controlling these media directly at times) has been as much a tool of control for those in power in democratic societies as in autocratic ones.

smsm42 5y ago
USA is literally founded on this principle: Congress shall make no law /.../ abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press And while it talks about the Congress, it is clear why the founders considered it to be necessary - the principal value of the free and unabridged speech to forming a free society is tremendous. True, in an armed conflict, speech has been used as a weapon, and it is also true that the reality of US government has often fallen short of the noble ideals laying at its foundation. But until recently, it has been a widely recognized principle that unmediated and un-gated access to speech and expression - be it audio, printed, electronic or any other means of speech - is a vital cornerstone of a modern free society. Unfortunately, recently certain part of political and cultural establishment decided they want to "move past" these antiquated ideas of equality and appoint themselves as gatekeepers of speech - "for our common benefit and the benefit of the society", of which they are but selfless servants, to be sure. The new Twitter CEO is, unfortunately, one of these people, and has unashamedly promoted this approach personally. Thus, we can expect only redoubling of effort from his side to suppress and remove speech that he considers "harmful" and discussion of topics he considers not up for discussion. Fortunately, there's an easy way to deal with it. As David Chappelle noted recently, "twitter is not a real place" - and doesn't need to be elevated to the position of society's gatekeeper, but rather demoted to society's cesspool. They proved themselves not up to the task to maintain robust free discourse platform - let them rot in their own bubble.

salt-thrower 5y ago

> What of free society? Is the government of the USA, UK, or other "enlightened" societies throughout history relying upon censorship and denial of information? I think they're moreso allowing moneyed interests and plutocracy to have lobbying and backdoor dealings, they can easily ignore the public square most of the time. This is definitely part of the picture. To add to this, I'll refer to Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky. "Propaganda" does still exist in modern "free societies," but it isn't overt like a 20th-century dictatorship would have been. Subtle manipulation of corporate media by monied interests to sway public opinion, combined with lobbying and corporate capture of government institutions, is more than enough to maintain the hegemony of certain narratives and power structures. I find it fascinating, and unsettling, to learn about. So in a nutshell, controlling information and mainstream media narratives is important for the modern ruling class, but it's much more subtle than overt censorship like a dictatorship would have. Which, in my view, makes it much more advanced and insidious.

mariavillosa 5y ago

>Is the government of the USA, UK, or other "enlightened" societies throughout history That sentence piques my interest, do people see the USA and UK that way? I think of Switzerland and Canada that way, for example, but my knowledge is all based on stereotypes. Maybe it depends where you're from, as the stereotypes must differ among regions.

AussieWog93 5y ago
The USA and UK, while not perfect, are absolutely more enlightened than, say, South Sudan or Saudi Arabia.
- mariavillosa 5y ago
  But almost all countries are more liberal than those two. My question isn't if the US and UK are the least enlightened countries in the world, but rather, if people see them as particularly enlightened among countries. Ie compared to any other random liberal country like Mexico or Czech Republic. I understand OP's point, just curious whether the examples used reflect a common perception. To me when thinking of stereotypically enlightened societies, I think of Iceland or Canada or something. The US I think of more as a business+war society, and UK seems somewhere in the middle, but much lower than the rest of Europe. This is based on nothing objective, just wondering what other people's perceptions of these places are
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    I understood "enlightened" to mean "espousing modern values of enlightenment" - basically fostering a belief in science and reason and trying to push mankind further in terms of technological and moral progress. In this regard, both of those countries would be considered B-tier at worst.
    - mariavillosa 5y ago
      This is my perception as well. Not knocking either of those countries, just curious if they were thought to be bastions of enlightenment values.