>>14580396Websites are mostly bite sized information people go onto to not think. Books on the other hand would eliminate some of the problems of common democracy, as well as providing a more carefully constructed and well thought out medium for the transmission of ideas. Also, the rating of each others content is more direct on websites, where books gain popularity more "naturally", through their actual thought provoking content, and enlightening ideas. People do not see a like and dislike ratio on books, they will either know of them, and want to read them, through their popularity, or a more so comprehensive review.
Academia in this sense is limited in two aspects. First, they are very biased, even if it shouldn't be, it is. That is obviously an extremely simplified conception of the actual nature of the situation, but in essence, they will not write their ideas freely, because they have a fear of ridicule from their peers, thus making them fall in line with the common concept. Secondly, it is not accessible to the multitude, which combats my very poorly thought out and ridiculous concept.
