[latexr]

I think it should be pretty obvious that dissemination of information and lies today—when you can’t even know if the person on the other side is real or from your own country—is much different than 300 years ago. The “information wants to be free” motivation is much closer to the world of today than the one in your distant past.

More importantly, I don’t understand why you’re so hung up on that. What difference does it make? If you agree with the conclusion, why are the dates of when the idea started so important? It doesn’t matter to the discussion, it’s only distracting from the point.

[LudwigNagasena]

> I think it should be pretty obvious that dissemination of information and lies today much different than 300 years ago.

Of course, so what? If your implication is that none of the arguments made over 300 years are relevant today, I would say it is pretty obviously completely wrong.

> when you can’t even know if the person on the other side is real or from your own country

Did people in England and France use to know the authors of seditious pamphlets that were produced in the Dutch Republic and smuggled into those countries? Most of them were anonymous. Not only they didn't know the authors, the authors 100% were enabled by foreign actors.

> it’s only distracting from the point

The point: we've seen recently how damaging the fast spread of lies is therefore only naive fools would be against information control. My rebuttal: we've seen how damaging lies are for 300 years, yet it is a deep ongoing debate that many great thinkers contributed to, therefore it is not just a matter of fools believing into something.

Or do you see "the point" to be something different?

[latexr]

> If your implication is that none of the arguments made over 300 years are relevant today

No, the point is that for the purposes of this discussion it is irrelevant when the arguments were first made. And reread the original:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48550066

Nowhere does it say that “information wants to be free” was the originator of the idea. It’s merely anchoring it to something recent HN readers have a good likelihood of being acquainted with. It’s like someone used Avatar to discuss how colonialism is portrayed in media, and someone came along to say “Pocahontas did it way before”. Alright, but that doesn’t matter for the argument. We’re discussing the idea itself, its origins do not make a difference for the matter.

I’ll ask again:

> If you agree with the conclusion, why are the dates of when the idea started so important?

[LudwigNagasena]

> No, the point is that for the purposes of this discussion it is irrelevant when the arguments were first made.

How is that irrelevant if the whole statement is literally about when the arguments were first made and supposedly disproven?

> Nowhere does it say that “information wants to be free” was the originator of the idea.

It literally says __now__ that we've seen how lies are also information and can travel even better using the same flow, as if it is something recent.

> It’s like someone used Avatar to discuss how colonialism is portrayed in media, and someone came along to say “Pocahontas did it way before”. Alright, but that doesn’t matter for the argument. We’re discussing the idea itself, its origins do not make a difference for the matter.

If someone says that our views on colonialism were naive before Avatar 2 changed our perception of Avatar, of course it is fair to mention Pocahontas and 300 years of nuanced discussions of colonialism.

[latexr]

I’ve now asked you the same simple question twice, with extra emphasis the second time. It’s not a complex question, it’s not a gotcha, it’s not an attack, it’s a clear question to determine the crux of the disagreement and find consensus.

Yet you continue to not answer it, and I can only guess it is deliberate since you clearly read the comment if you quote so much of it.

So I have a new question: What is the point of continuing to engage with you if you refuse to answer the most basic of queries to clarify your point?

[LudwigNagasena]

I thought I have clearly explained that I completely disagree with the claim and its entire framing. Not sure what you mean by conclusion that I supposedly agree with.