4 ms·

"While early radio amateurs harnessed its potential to connect and inform, the era of unlicensed amateur broadcasting ended during World War I due to fears that

"While early radio amateurs harnessed its potential to connect and inform, the era of unlicensed amateur broadcasting ended during World War I due to fears that the new medium might be misused to spread foreign propaganda or divisive content." You gotta wonder what the congress of bygone eras would have done with the current system we have of media and corporate control.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Nasrudith 2y ago
World War 1 era media regulations isn't something to be proud of or looked upon as wisdom, it is something to be deeply ashamed of. These are the people who arrested pacifists and brought us the abominable (in both senses) logic of fire in a crowded theater for objecting to draft and involvement in a foreign war of unseen proportions.
SllX 2y ago
Yeah, imagine if a free people had been able to spread information contradicting and undermining the Wilson administration: https://www.loc.gov/exhibitions/world-war-i-american-experiences/about-this-exhibition/over-here/surveillance-and-censorship/four-minute-men/ https://www.loc.gov/exhibitions/world-war-i-american-experie... (It’s worth going through the whole slideshow.)
- FergusArgyll 2y ago
  The Baraboo fire may have been as much a protest over the difficulty of local German language courses as an expression of anti-German sentiment prevalent across the nation at that time. Are there easy German language courses?!
  - SllX 2y ago
    There were a lot more German-as-first-language Americans back then than there were later in the 20th Century due to anti-German sentiment.
hagbard_c 2y ago
Probably the same as some of today's politico's and law makers have in mind when it comes to curbing free speech, e.g. John Kerry's wish to be free from the limits the first amendment puts on government restricting speech [1]: our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence. So what we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern, by hopefully winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change or supreme court justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson's mournful declaration that [the] First Amendment is ‘hamstringing’ government from censorship [2] [1] https://nypost.com/2024/10/02/opinion/john-kerry-says-first-amendment-is-the-enemy-as-elites-try-to-stamp-out-free-speech/ https://nypost.com/2024/10/02/opinion/john-kerry-says-first-... [2] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/2926698/ketanji-brown-jackson-concerned-first-amendment-is-hamstringing-government-from-censorship/ https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/2926698/keta... In other words, nothing has changed really in that those in power are wary of technology which allows non-government (controlled) entities to spread information.
- azinman2 2y ago
  Your link to KBJ is missing a ton of context that is extremely reasonable and apparently in agreement with her conservative peers: https://reason.com/2024/03/19/hamstringing-the-government-a-viral-narrative-distorts-ketanji-brown-jacksons-understanding-of-free-speech/ https://reason.com/2024/03/19/hamstringing-the-government-a-... Even the NY post at least (shockingly) had enough context to get to the further reasonable issue: we’re seeing mass disinformation, sometimes from foreign enemies, spread across the homeland at rates never before seen, and in doing its ripping apart the fabric of society. The way you’re being selective in these quotes is doing a disservice to the very real issue at hand. This is exactly a “new medium might be misused to spread foreign propaganda or divisive content.”
  - pessimizer 2y ago
    Nobody mentioned nor complimented the behavior of "her conservative peers." You're the one who has turned the discussion partisan. The fact that "conservatives" are also bad on an issue doesn't make non-conservatives good or even different on an issue; that's from that weird pseudo-argument where people who passionately hate Trump mention that Trump also did some act or took some position that they're trying to defend. It's become an argument that something is fine if the people who one claims are the evilest people in the world also think it is fine. Or that if evil people can get away with something evil, then that's unfair to the good people who have earned the opportunity to do evil? I have no idea.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Nasrudith 2y ago

World War 1 era media regulations isn't something to be proud of or looked upon as wisdom, it is something to be deeply ashamed of. These are the people who arrested pacifists and brought us the abominable (in both senses) logic of fire in a crowded theater for objecting to draft and involvement in a foreign war of unseen proportions.

SllX 2y ago

Yeah, imagine if a free people had been able to spread information contradicting and undermining the Wilson administration: https://www.loc.gov/exhibitions/world-war-i-american-experiences/about-this-exhibition/over-here/surveillance-and-censorship/four-minute-men/ https://www.loc.gov/exhibitions/world-war-i-american-experie... (It’s worth going through the whole slideshow.)

FergusArgyll 2y ago
The Baraboo fire may have been as much a protest over the difficulty of local German language courses as an expression of anti-German sentiment prevalent across the nation at that time. Are there easy German language courses?!
- SllX 2y ago
  There were a lot more German-as-first-language Americans back then than there were later in the 20th Century due to anti-German sentiment.

hagbard_c 2y ago

Probably the same as some of today's politico's and law makers have in mind when it comes to curbing free speech, e.g. John Kerry's wish to be free from the limits the first amendment puts on government restricting speech [1]: our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence. So what we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern, by hopefully winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change or supreme court justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson's mournful declaration that [the] First Amendment is ‘hamstringing’ government from censorship [2] [1] https://nypost.com/2024/10/02/opinion/john-kerry-says-first-amendment-is-the-enemy-as-elites-try-to-stamp-out-free-speech/ https://nypost.com/2024/10/02/opinion/john-kerry-says-first-... [2] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/2926698/ketanji-brown-jackson-concerned-first-amendment-is-hamstringing-government-from-censorship/ https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/2926698/keta... In other words, nothing has changed really in that those in power are wary of technology which allows non-government (controlled) entities to spread information.

azinman2 2y ago
Your link to KBJ is missing a ton of context that is extremely reasonable and apparently in agreement with her conservative peers: https://reason.com/2024/03/19/hamstringing-the-government-a-viral-narrative-distorts-ketanji-brown-jacksons-understanding-of-free-speech/ https://reason.com/2024/03/19/hamstringing-the-government-a-... Even the NY post at least (shockingly) had enough context to get to the further reasonable issue: we’re seeing mass disinformation, sometimes from foreign enemies, spread across the homeland at rates never before seen, and in doing its ripping apart the fabric of society. The way you’re being selective in these quotes is doing a disservice to the very real issue at hand. This is exactly a “new medium might be misused to spread foreign propaganda or divisive content.”
- pessimizer 2y ago
  Nobody mentioned nor complimented the behavior of "her conservative peers." You're the one who has turned the discussion partisan. The fact that "conservatives" are also bad on an issue doesn't make non-conservatives good or even different on an issue; that's from that weird pseudo-argument where people who passionately hate Trump mention that Trump also did some act or took some position that they're trying to defend. It's become an argument that something is fine if the people who one claims are the evilest people in the world also think it is fine. Or that if evil people can get away with something evil, then that's unfair to the good people who have earned the opportunity to do evil? I have no idea.