4 ms·

The Founders lived in a world where it was much harder to distribute writing. How many printing presses existed in Philadelphia during the drafting of the Const

The Founders lived in a world where it was much harder to distribute writing. How many printing presses existed in Philadelphia during the drafting of the Constitution? What, in inflation adjusted dollars, was the cost of sending your opinion to anyone who asked for it in 1787? If the biggest local printer didn't like your opinion, what could you do about it?

jcranmer 4y ago
Given the sheer number of pamphlets and broadsheets around that timeframe, there were probably far, far more printers then than you expect. Certainly, "the biggest local printer doesn't like your opinion" doesn't appear to have been an impediment--I have not read any history of Revolutionary-era US without allusion to very vociferous and boisterous debates going on in the print world.
- kevinmchugh 4y ago
  Independence from Britain was fairly popular by comparison (usually thought to be like 33%) and was well represented amongst the people likely to own a press - that's Ben Franklin, right? How many atheist pamphlets we're printed? How many advocating for legalized, unstigmatized homosexuality or interracial marriage? Perhaps no one held these opinions, but it's hard to say that if the printing of that was suppressed.
- cronix 4y ago
  > Given the sheer number of pamphlets and broadsheets around that timeframe, there were probably far, far more printers then than you expect. Yes, but they didn't digitally transmit from one printer to another to spread "news." The speed of horse was the fastest news traveled. I'm not sure the end number of printers means much on its own. > Letters, prior to the postal system, were typically sent with friends, servants, acquaintances, slaves or travelers. Sending a letter 100 miles away took as long as two weeks. Many times, multiple letters were sent out with multiple carriers to increase the chance that at least one copy made it to its final destination. https://www.reference.com/history/did-people-communicate-1700s-f522b0825da9b118 https://www.reference.com/history/did-people-communicate-170...
dannyw 4y ago
You could always write a letter and post it. Today, yes you can still write a letter, but without the 1000x powers of instant digital communication and amplification, your opinions are essentially worthless. Scale matters. Two companies (Apple and Google) can effectively kick your app out of mainstream reach. Two companies (Facebook and Twitter) can effectively deplatform and silence you. This level of consolidation and relative power, has never occurred before. The status quo needs to change.
- kevinmchugh 4y ago
  I can distribute a video easier now than at any point in the past. The same is true for text and audio. Can you imagine trying to distribute a video in like 1965? If ABC, NBC, or CBS didn't want it, what then? You could rent a local theater, assuming the theater owner will take your call and doesn't object to the content of your video. What if it's an anti American film, or criticizing the war in Vietnam?

jcranmer 4y ago

Given the sheer number of pamphlets and broadsheets around that timeframe, there were probably far, far more printers then than you expect. Certainly, "the biggest local printer doesn't like your opinion" doesn't appear to have been an impediment--I have not read any history of Revolutionary-era US without allusion to very vociferous and boisterous debates going on in the print world.

kevinmchugh 4y ago
Independence from Britain was fairly popular by comparison (usually thought to be like 33%) and was well represented amongst the people likely to own a press - that's Ben Franklin, right? How many atheist pamphlets we're printed? How many advocating for legalized, unstigmatized homosexuality or interracial marriage? Perhaps no one held these opinions, but it's hard to say that if the printing of that was suppressed.
cronix 4y ago
> Given the sheer number of pamphlets and broadsheets around that timeframe, there were probably far, far more printers then than you expect. Yes, but they didn't digitally transmit from one printer to another to spread "news." The speed of horse was the fastest news traveled. I'm not sure the end number of printers means much on its own. > Letters, prior to the postal system, were typically sent with friends, servants, acquaintances, slaves or travelers. Sending a letter 100 miles away took as long as two weeks. Many times, multiple letters were sent out with multiple carriers to increase the chance that at least one copy made it to its final destination. https://www.reference.com/history/did-people-communicate-1700s-f522b0825da9b118 https://www.reference.com/history/did-people-communicate-170...

dannyw 4y ago

You could always write a letter and post it. Today, yes you can still write a letter, but without the 1000x powers of instant digital communication and amplification, your opinions are essentially worthless. Scale matters. Two companies (Apple and Google) can effectively kick your app out of mainstream reach. Two companies (Facebook and Twitter) can effectively deplatform and silence you. This level of consolidation and relative power, has never occurred before. The status quo needs to change.

kevinmchugh 4y ago
I can distribute a video easier now than at any point in the past. The same is true for text and audio. Can you imagine trying to distribute a video in like 1965? If ABC, NBC, or CBS didn't want it, what then? You could rent a local theater, assuming the theater owner will take your call and doesn't object to the content of your video. What if it's an anti American film, or criticizing the war in Vietnam?