Comment by Kiln6125
4 days ago
Technically anyone could write a full book or transcribe them before the printing press came around, but it certainly was a democratizing force for publishing when it was invented. The democratization is in the scale and leverage available to the average person.
> Technically anyone could write a full book or transcribe them before the printing press came around
No, no they could not. Access to books was very limited then and not that many could read and write. That comparison does not work in the slightest.
That's my point exactly. The average person could not take an idea from conception to a publishable program, and now they can. I'm actually surprised it fits as well as it does metaphors being imperfect and all that.
> The average person could not take an idea from conception to a publishable program
Of course they could, they just had to learn how, and that’s the point. There was no “gatekeeping”¹ and there was nothing “undemocratic”² about it. The information was already ample and freely available to all. Those who had the means (a computing device) before have the means now and the opposite isn’t true (you still need access to a computing device to prompt and a server to host the things which need hosting).
¹ You didn’t use that word, but it’s a common argument in these conversations.
² For something to be “democratising”, what came before had to be undemocratic.
Define "not that many".
Warning: I study medieval writings, from fiction books to clerical notes on supplies. Don't give me that "everyone died at 25 and ate mud" BS.
> Don't give me that "everyone died at 25 and ate mud" BS.
No one has said that. You’ve already demonstrated you are arguing in profound bad faith (in all three of your comments) so forgive me if I choose to not engage you any further in your quest for a “gotcha” moment. You can keep your internet points.