4 ms·

Not totally convinced about the printing press example (expensive, technical). The biggest presses, with the longest reach (daily newspapers) were often owned b

by flir 2mo ago

Not totally convinced about the printing press example (expensive, technical). The biggest presses, with the longest reach (daily newspapers) were often owned by the richest people. What's unique now is decentralized + extreme potential reach. Or it was. Now we have to consider bias in the algorithm that sticks stuff in front of us and is, I suspect, the modern equivalent of those daily newspaper presses.

rayiner 2mo ago
> The biggest presses, with the longest reach (daily newspapers) were often owned by the richest people. You're assuming that "rich" is the only relevant dividing line, which it isn't.
- flir 2mo ago
  Gnomic.
- LastTrain 2mo ago
  But GP was pointing at commonalities, not differences. It took money to run a major press.
shimman 2mo ago
This discounting how many of the 100s of worker owned newspapers/magazines that were in circulation. Not everything was controlled by a select few. How did you think labor movements in America during the 1800s collectively organized across the country sharing literal war stories?
- KPGv2 2mo ago
  "Oh those don't count as newspapers. Newspapers are professional. Those are just zines." It's why I hate people looking down on fanfiction, too. Aliens was Alien fanfiction. The New Testament is OT fanfiction. Hell, nolan's The Odyssey is fanfiction. The establishment uses terms to dismiss outsider art as less-than, and this isn't much different. (They of course get to decide what the "inside" is)
  - hollerith 2mo ago
    >Aliens was Alien fanfiction Just because an established Hollywood director was a fan of the first Alien movie does make his script for Alien's sequel "fan fiction". Cameron had already written and directed The Terminator when the owners of the Alien franchise chose his script for the sequel. (Fifty Shades of Grey in contrast really did originate as fan fiction.)
- flir 2mo ago
  I'm not discounting it by any means. And I know about the pamphlet era that was enabled by the invention of the printing press, and the profound effect it had on Europe. But what's the typical reach of one of those worker-owned newspapers, compared to the reach of a mass circulation newspaper? I think you missed my point: printing at scale needs a support system and a distribution system, and that requires capital. The "age of mass, top-down communications" didn't start "in the mid 20th century", and the printing press should not be used as a counterexample to support rayiner's argument. William Randolph Hearst was born in 1863.
  - shimman 2mo ago
    Worker newspapers in the US had circulations as high as 10s of thousands to almost a million during the height of national strikes during the new deal (nearly several every month). The point is you are letting a system designed by elites to uphold elites set the boundaries. There are many forms of alternative media out there, some more popular than any billionaire owned rag. Just expand your definition and don't let others tell you what is or isn't appropriate. Especially when it comes to political thought.
    - flir 2mo ago
      *bangs head on desk* You're reading a description and hearing endorsement.
      - shimman 2mo ago
        I really don't know what you are saying then because US labor movements did not distribute just pamphlets, there were truly alternative media sources out there. You're forgetting that there was a real communist, socialist, and anarchist movements for almost entire lifetimes before they were all systematically destroyed after WW2 with the help of powerful organizations like the CIO. Add in the red scare + knee capping more leftists + academics during the 60s, 70s and you have a once massively influential independent confederate type of worker lead organizations that now amount to some moderate pundit's substack where they traded advocacy for ad dollars. But before all this there were dual power institutions and mutual aid even going as far as providing free public education to all (who do you think taught cattle ranchers how to read in the 1880s? Then look at how quickly they took up leftist literature then writing their own). What are you truly saying here because it just sounds like you don't know the history of labor in the US, which no shit. They don't teach this stuff anywhere, you have to purposely seek it out because neoliberals consider this type of stuff heretical.
ijk 2mo ago
The early pre-United States had pamphlets and newsletters. Like, a lot of them. It was a big influence on the early post office. You could get rich running a printing press but you did it by printing for the masses. The yellow journalism era, on the other hand, was a little closer to the rich owning the press.
- thewebguyd 2mo ago
  The penny press, and a ton of those pamphlets amount to what we now call tabloids. They were funded by advertising too, and used fear & outrage to sell copies. Led to some pretty funny conspiracies like The Moon Hoax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Moon_Hoax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Moon_Hoax) Times are not as different as we'd like to believe
dragontamer 2mo ago
Rich _people_ yes. But corporations were an act of Congress in 1776. Early America was decidedly anti-corporate (the Boston Tea Party was about a tax break to a corporation). Early Americans (and early thinkers who influenced Americans) were grossly distrustful of corporations and pools of money. > The directors with of such [joint-stock] companies, however, being the managers rather of other people's money than of their own, it cannot well be expected, that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own Adam Smith, the Wealth of Nations

by flir 2mo ago

rayiner 2mo ago

> The biggest presses, with the longest reach (daily newspapers) were often owned by the richest people. You're assuming that "rich" is the only relevant dividing line, which it isn't.

flir 2mo ago
Gnomic.
LastTrain 2mo ago
But GP was pointing at commonalities, not differences. It took money to run a major press.

shimman 2mo ago

This discounting how many of the 100s of worker owned newspapers/magazines that were in circulation. Not everything was controlled by a select few. How did you think labor movements in America during the 1800s collectively organized across the country sharing literal war stories?

KPGv2 2mo ago
"Oh those don't count as newspapers. Newspapers are professional. Those are just zines." It's why I hate people looking down on fanfiction, too. Aliens was Alien fanfiction. The New Testament is OT fanfiction. Hell, nolan's The Odyssey is fanfiction. The establishment uses terms to dismiss outsider art as less-than, and this isn't much different. (They of course get to decide what the "inside" is)
- hollerith 2mo ago
  >Aliens was Alien fanfiction Just because an established Hollywood director was a fan of the first Alien movie does make his script for Alien's sequel "fan fiction". Cameron had already written and directed The Terminator when the owners of the Alien franchise chose his script for the sequel. (Fifty Shades of Grey in contrast really did originate as fan fiction.)
flir 2mo ago
I'm not discounting it by any means. And I know about the pamphlet era that was enabled by the invention of the printing press, and the profound effect it had on Europe. But what's the typical reach of one of those worker-owned newspapers, compared to the reach of a mass circulation newspaper? I think you missed my point: printing at scale needs a support system and a distribution system, and that requires capital. The "age of mass, top-down communications" didn't start "in the mid 20th century", and the printing press should not be used as a counterexample to support rayiner's argument. William Randolph Hearst was born in 1863.
- shimman 2mo ago
  Worker newspapers in the US had circulations as high as 10s of thousands to almost a million during the height of national strikes during the new deal (nearly several every month). The point is you are letting a system designed by elites to uphold elites set the boundaries. There are many forms of alternative media out there, some more popular than any billionaire owned rag. Just expand your definition and don't let others tell you what is or isn't appropriate. Especially when it comes to political thought.
  - flir 2mo ago
    *bangs head on desk* You're reading a description and hearing endorsement.
    - shimman 2mo ago
      I really don't know what you are saying then because US labor movements did not distribute just pamphlets, there were truly alternative media sources out there. You're forgetting that there was a real communist, socialist, and anarchist movements for almost entire lifetimes before they were all systematically destroyed after WW2 with the help of powerful organizations like the CIO. Add in the red scare + knee capping more leftists + academics during the 60s, 70s and you have a once massively influential independent confederate type of worker lead organizations that now amount to some moderate pundit's substack where they traded advocacy for ad dollars. But before all this there were dual power institutions and mutual aid even going as far as providing free public education to all (who do you think taught cattle ranchers how to read in the 1880s? Then look at how quickly they took up leftist literature then writing their own). What are you truly saying here because it just sounds like you don't know the history of labor in the US, which no shit. They don't teach this stuff anywhere, you have to purposely seek it out because neoliberals consider this type of stuff heretical.

ijk 2mo ago

The early pre-United States had pamphlets and newsletters. Like, a lot of them. It was a big influence on the early post office. You could get rich running a printing press but you did it by printing for the masses. The yellow journalism era, on the other hand, was a little closer to the rich owning the press.

thewebguyd 2mo ago
The penny press, and a ton of those pamphlets amount to what we now call tabloids. They were funded by advertising too, and used fear & outrage to sell copies. Led to some pretty funny conspiracies like The Moon Hoax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Moon_Hoax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Moon_Hoax) Times are not as different as we'd like to believe

dragontamer 2mo ago

Rich _people_ yes. But corporations were an act of Congress in 1776. Early America was decidedly anti-corporate (the Boston Tea Party was about a tax break to a corporation). Early Americans (and early thinkers who influenced Americans) were grossly distrustful of corporations and pools of money. > The directors with of such [joint-stock] companies, however, being the managers rather of other people's money than of their own, it cannot well be expected, that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own Adam Smith, the Wealth of Nations