3 ms·

Your comment has me wondering about history and whether such previous drastic changes in communication technology have also brought waves of censorship, both by

Your comment has me wondering about history and whether such previous drastic changes in communication technology have also brought waves of censorship, both by others and by ourselves. For example, with radio, the telephone, or even the printing press. In other words, not only the ability to publish/broadcast, but to have people reply to your publishing or broadcasting. I also wonder if we somehow adapt to it as we learn these new ways to communicate.

mmaunder 5y ago
Those breakthroughs had gatekeepers, for better or worse. Publishing house owners, newspaper owners/editors, radio station supervisors and owners. For the first time in all of history we can all publish instantly to everyone else at no cost. It’s a very exciting time and is, unsurprisingly, fraught with problems.
- jimkleiber 5y ago
  Yeah, I agree. The ability to broadcast (and respond to broadcasts) to the world from almost anywhere in the world at any time, and have it recorded in text, audio, video, or more for an indefinite amount of time, so that people can receive it almost at any time from any place, I'd say has no close parallels in human history. The lack of gatekeepers I think is one of the biggest deals. Maybe the printing press gave the lack of gatekeeper, and maybe some forms of radio had that as well, but normally to broadcast to large audiences, there have been gatekeepers. Now, that being said, some platforms are starting to gatekeep at a very high level (e.g. Youtube, Twitter, FB), and many communication forums have lower level moderation (reddit, group chats, email lists, etc), yet, still, huge changes. I try to not say "we're living in an unprecedented time" because I think people use it way too often and it often has more to do with their inability to see similarities across time. And yet, as you've mentioned, we've never had communication like this as a species.
- d0mine 5y ago
  It is not true now. Unless it is published on platforms controlled by select few, most people won't see it. For example, it looks like a reasonable (evidence-based) discussion on COVID is not possible on Youtube unless it reflects what google censors think the current scientific truth should be https://youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk&list=PLSl6im8mc0fIRuNHWzhdV-K34FvUqHRut&index=26 https://youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk&list=PLSl6im8mc0fIRu...
ayngg 5y ago
A similar thread could be the proliferation of literature meant to help identify and condemn witches with the invention of the printing press, which greatly influenced the witch hunt moral panic that followed. In contrast, telephones don't amplify messages in the same way, and radio had the drawback of being temporary since broadcasts couldn't easily be recorded and distributed like pamphlets and books.
- jimkleiber 5y ago
  Oh yeah, the witch hunts! Such an experiment through which we're living, giving people megaphones to communicate to almost anyone on the planet, whether 1-to-1, 1-to-few, or 1-to-many. And as you said, have it be recorded! What I'm typing here from my kitchen table will be sent 'round the world to however many people who are reading now...but will continue to be sent to those people for as long as this website exists and gets indexed by search engines...or longer if it gets picked up by an archive service. For negligible cost to me, practically free. Goodness.
  - andreskytt 5y ago
    Goodness, indeed. But, in the context of memes, this means ideas no longer have to be beneficial to their human hosts in order to proliferate. It used to be that you’d have to be at least moderately well-to-do (thus, capable financially and biologically) for extended periods of time in order for your ideas to appear in print and be spread. That is no longer the case: an idea might be deadly or ruinous within hours and still have enough time to go viral.
    - jimkleiber 5y ago
      I'm a little lost yet curious, what do you mean by "no longer have to be beneficial to their human hosts in order to proliferate"?
      - bavell 5y ago
        I took it to mean that the idea has escaped into the wider world and its fate is no longer tied to its originator's alone.
andrew_ 5y ago
The invention of the printing press opened the floodgates to both open, free discussion and wild censorship. This is a good read if you're into that kind of random info: https://brewminate.com/censorship-and-freedom-of-the-press-in-the-early-modern-period/ https://brewminate.com/censorship-and-freedom-of-the-press-i...
- jimkleiber 5y ago
  > if you're into that kind of random info Almost always, yes. But by a German professor in Journalism and Communications on historical censorship on a website that has "brew" in the domain? Certainly. Thank you!

mmaunder 5y ago

Those breakthroughs had gatekeepers, for better or worse. Publishing house owners, newspaper owners/editors, radio station supervisors and owners. For the first time in all of history we can all publish instantly to everyone else at no cost. It’s a very exciting time and is, unsurprisingly, fraught with problems.

jimkleiber 5y ago
Yeah, I agree. The ability to broadcast (and respond to broadcasts) to the world from almost anywhere in the world at any time, and have it recorded in text, audio, video, or more for an indefinite amount of time, so that people can receive it almost at any time from any place, I'd say has no close parallels in human history. The lack of gatekeepers I think is one of the biggest deals. Maybe the printing press gave the lack of gatekeeper, and maybe some forms of radio had that as well, but normally to broadcast to large audiences, there have been gatekeepers. Now, that being said, some platforms are starting to gatekeep at a very high level (e.g. Youtube, Twitter, FB), and many communication forums have lower level moderation (reddit, group chats, email lists, etc), yet, still, huge changes. I try to not say "we're living in an unprecedented time" because I think people use it way too often and it often has more to do with their inability to see similarities across time. And yet, as you've mentioned, we've never had communication like this as a species.
d0mine 5y ago
It is not true now. Unless it is published on platforms controlled by select few, most people won't see it. For example, it looks like a reasonable (evidence-based) discussion on COVID is not possible on Youtube unless it reflects what google censors think the current scientific truth should be https://youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk&list=PLSl6im8mc0fIRuNHWzhdV-K34FvUqHRut&index=26 https://youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk&list=PLSl6im8mc0fIRu...

ayngg 5y ago

A similar thread could be the proliferation of literature meant to help identify and condemn witches with the invention of the printing press, which greatly influenced the witch hunt moral panic that followed. In contrast, telephones don't amplify messages in the same way, and radio had the drawback of being temporary since broadcasts couldn't easily be recorded and distributed like pamphlets and books.

jimkleiber 5y ago
Oh yeah, the witch hunts! Such an experiment through which we're living, giving people megaphones to communicate to almost anyone on the planet, whether 1-to-1, 1-to-few, or 1-to-many. And as you said, have it be recorded! What I'm typing here from my kitchen table will be sent 'round the world to however many people who are reading now...but will continue to be sent to those people for as long as this website exists and gets indexed by search engines...or longer if it gets picked up by an archive service. For negligible cost to me, practically free. Goodness.
- andreskytt 5y ago
  Goodness, indeed. But, in the context of memes, this means ideas no longer have to be beneficial to their human hosts in order to proliferate. It used to be that you’d have to be at least moderately well-to-do (thus, capable financially and biologically) for extended periods of time in order for your ideas to appear in print and be spread. That is no longer the case: an idea might be deadly or ruinous within hours and still have enough time to go viral.
  - jimkleiber 5y ago
    I'm a little lost yet curious, what do you mean by "no longer have to be beneficial to their human hosts in order to proliferate"?
    - bavell 5y ago
      I took it to mean that the idea has escaped into the wider world and its fate is no longer tied to its originator's alone.

andrew_ 5y ago

The invention of the printing press opened the floodgates to both open, free discussion and wild censorship. This is a good read if you're into that kind of random info: https://brewminate.com/censorship-and-freedom-of-the-press-in-the-early-modern-period/ https://brewminate.com/censorship-and-freedom-of-the-press-i...

jimkleiber 5y ago
> if you're into that kind of random info Almost always, yes. But by a German professor in Journalism and Communications on historical censorship on a website that has "brew" in the domain? Certainly. Thank you!