> I used to have this point of view, but it's clear lately that certain types of information do not result in good outcomes if processed by the uneducated. I a

> I used to have this point of view, but it's clear lately that certain types of information do not result in good outcomes if processed by the uneducated. I am watching a lot of historic documentaries. I studied history (and literature) originally. I read a lot of historic sources and accounts. This argument, that the powerful and educated need to protect the dumb masses by censoring what they are allowed to know/read isn't new. It is used by the powerful way before the medieval age but was (just to name an example) used by the catholic church against the translation of the Bible. It was used by western governments during the cold War. It is still used by the British government with their ability to silence editorial boards on specific topics. It was used by the US against Wikileaks. It was used by the GDR against their own people who also were officially banned from watching western TV/listen to western radio. It was used by western Germsn media when they decided to not publish the RAF terrorists' letters where they declared their reasoning for bombs or killings. I don't buy it in historic context and I don't buy it today.