4 ms·

A worthwhile read on the British history of this subject is "Power without Responsibility: Press, Broadcasting and the Internet in Britain" My biggest take fro

A worthwhile read on the British history of this subject is "Power without Responsibility: Press, Broadcasting and the Internet in Britain" My biggest take from this is that your notion that "freedom of anyone to use technology to disseminate information" as upheld by the printing establishment is significantly undermined by the business of printing itself - whereby the cost of disseminating information has increased consistently to make a truly "free" press completely prohibitive to the average person. The book goes into great detail about how this happened and the nature of how the internet effects this pattern. I would highly recommend this to anyone reading this thread.

einhverfr 13y ago
Noted pamphletist Hilaire Belloc complained about exactly that in the early 20th century.
dnautics 13y ago
yeah but the average person doesn't need to disseminate information to maintain a free society. It's totally fine to have a community of news mavens that supplies most of the information. What is not okay is a process of accreditation, either state-run (or less worrisome) an independent process - that affords special roadblocks to get protected status.
- sbirchall 13y ago
  Common Sense[1] might disagree with you on that one. If we are talking about truly "disseminating information" I think we need to consider any form of broadcast or public proclamation and so as we approach the 50th anniversary of a certain speech[2] I would say the dissemination of information by an average person is absolutely fundamental to the checks and balances required to construct and maintain a free society. But therein lies the rub - just swamp the channels with noise and you raise the bar for actually transmitting a meaningful signal. This is what I was alluding to in my other comment about the way the internet has effected this age old pattern. It's not clear what your second point is saying - it's okay to have only experts informing the public, but they cannot be afforded "special... protected status"? Like parliamentary privilege? "The fourth estate"? Freedom of speech? The right to protect their sources? I'm genuinely curious about what you mean, sorry if I've misunderstood completely. [1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense_%28pamphlet%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense_%28pamphlet%29] [2: MLK - August 28th 1963]
  - dnautics 13y ago
    I'm taking a literal view of the word average. Anyone motivated to write a pamphlet is by definition no longer the average person, unless almost everyone else is doing so - i don't think we need 50% of the population writing pamphlets to maintain a free society. As to your understanding of my second point: Exactly. I am saying it's okay for only experts to be informing the public, as long as there is no barrier to anyone becoming an expert. The only way to ensure there is no barrier to anyone becoming an expert is to have no special protected status. The only way to have no special protected status is for the protected status to be extended to everyone. In summary: Everyone should have the protection of the freedom of the press, therefore, anyone can become an expert with all the attendant protections (without having to be special), but it's okay if not everyone is an expert, as long as anyone COULD be an expert.

einhverfr 13y ago

Noted pamphletist Hilaire Belloc complained about exactly that in the early 20th century.

dnautics 13y ago

yeah but the average person doesn't need to disseminate information to maintain a free society. It's totally fine to have a community of news mavens that supplies most of the information. What is not okay is a process of accreditation, either state-run (or less worrisome) an independent process - that affords special roadblocks to get protected status.

sbirchall 13y ago
Common Sense[1] might disagree with you on that one. If we are talking about truly "disseminating information" I think we need to consider any form of broadcast or public proclamation and so as we approach the 50th anniversary of a certain speech[2] I would say the dissemination of information by an average person is absolutely fundamental to the checks and balances required to construct and maintain a free society. But therein lies the rub - just swamp the channels with noise and you raise the bar for actually transmitting a meaningful signal. This is what I was alluding to in my other comment about the way the internet has effected this age old pattern. It's not clear what your second point is saying - it's okay to have only experts informing the public, but they cannot be afforded "special... protected status"? Like parliamentary privilege? "The fourth estate"? Freedom of speech? The right to protect their sources? I'm genuinely curious about what you mean, sorry if I've misunderstood completely. [1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense_%28pamphlet%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense_%28pamphlet%29] [2: MLK - August 28th 1963]
- dnautics 13y ago
  I'm taking a literal view of the word average. Anyone motivated to write a pamphlet is by definition no longer the average person, unless almost everyone else is doing so - i don't think we need 50% of the population writing pamphlets to maintain a free society. As to your understanding of my second point: Exactly. I am saying it's okay for only experts to be informing the public, as long as there is no barrier to anyone becoming an expert. The only way to ensure there is no barrier to anyone becoming an expert is to have no special protected status. The only way to have no special protected status is for the protected status to be extended to everyone. In summary: Everyone should have the protection of the freedom of the press, therefore, anyone can become an expert with all the attendant protections (without having to be special), but it's okay if not everyone is an expert, as long as anyone COULD be an expert.