9 ms·
> We tried this in the 1930s in Europe and it didn’t seem to go very well. I agree, a bureaucracy banning books and reference material that ran counter to the
by trafficante 3y ago
> We tried this in the 1930s in Europe and it didn’t seem to go very well.
I agree, a bureaucracy banning books and reference material that ran counter to the approved narrative was quite disastrous. Hopefully we don’t repeat that mistake now that everyone is neatly siloed into digital echo chambers.
Personally, I think we did pretty well against the (specifically online) deluge of misinformation and fringe ideas for about a decade or so prior to ~2010. Unfortunately, the “problem” of internet free speech seems to have been solved and now we’re just waiting to see whether the censors or the reactionaries win and what type of fresh authoritarian hell awaits on the other side.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago> now we’re just waiting to see whether the censors or the reactionaries win If you think these are the two camps, I recommend googling the words “Republican” and “book bans.”
- silisili 3y agoThere's a pretty big difference in wanting sexually explicit material out of classrooms, and outright book bans... I'd argue neither side has a stellar record today, but it's the other that's more speech stifling...
- bugglebeetle 3y agoAcknowledging queer people exist or even that sex itself exists is not in anyway explicit. This is just American bigotry and Puritanism run amok.