I'm surprised this is gaining traction here, because I think the key thing that Bradbury _didn't_ see, and which Wills brushes past, is that in Fahrenheit 451 t

I'm surprised this is gaining traction here, because I think the key thing that Bradbury _didn't_ see, and which Wills brushes past, is that in Fahrenheit 451 they're burning books because the mental model of how ideas flow was still centered around print media with publishers/printers, one-writer-many-readers, etc. And no one in Fahrenheit talks about writing a book, producing ideas, really do they? (It's been a long time since I read it.) The kind of interactive conversation we take for granted today, where anyone can post, and where the reactions of others are immediately visible and part of the experience of not just seeing but finding content, was understandably not foreseen by Bradbury in 1953. But now that we've arrived here, don't we need better and more up to date models for how to think about censorship? In particular, issues/mechanisms which aren't really central in my memory of Bradbury were: - facticity: is deliberate misinformation a more legitimate target for suppression? - equity among different types of actors: e.g. the FDA doesn't allow a manufacturer or distributor of Ivermectin to say that it is an effective Covid treatment. Should non-affiliated parties be able to say it, and be paid to say it? - financial incentives for "inflammatory" (pun intended) content Flattening it all to just the presence or absence of any mechanism of suppressing content, irrespective of who is doing it, how, or why I think actually hinders our ability to have the nuanced conversation which Wills would claim to be defending. And if you _do_ want to talk about Bradbury's prescience, I think Joe Rogan is the wrong example to pick right now. There are plenty of contemporary examples of states or local school boards trying to ban concepts from the curriculum, or books, in a way which is a lot more directly aligned, and aren't weighed down by the same baggage.