4 ms·
It's a decent question, here's the reason why people are upset... Politics is something that we create to allow sharing of power between people NOT only in dir
by zimablue 9y ago
It's a decent question, here's the reason why people are upset...
Politics is something that we create to allow sharing of power between people NOT only in direct proportion to their money/military power but one man one vote.
Now as you notice it's not quite that simple because there is propaganda, which has to be paid for.
So some of this propaganda is paid for by specific interests, but all countries have limitations on this. Eg. in the UK we're currently on the borderline of arresting people because they may have exceeded campaign spending limits. All our politicians have complicated rules about donations, spending limits and broadcasts around elections.
Now the US has some of the loosest rules around this, because your supreme court ruled that (broadly) money is speech, so unlimited campaign donations to superpacs are allowed (I'm not an expert on US politics I think this is roughly right).
But even in the US there are limitations, eg. no money from foreign entities, the lawyer thing that they're trying to string up for where him paying off the hooker is effectively donation.
So why are people angry - because the thin wall we've tried to create between raw financial power and controlling people through propaganda with no control or limits has been eroded. Because the legislation (and enforcement) is from an old era when newspapers, radio, television were the most important things.
If you're saying that maybe we should just rip down all the regulations and have unlimited political donations across borders then maybe you can have an argument about that, but I don't think I'd agree. I like that it's at least a little difficult for US companies to bribe UK politicians to relax our regulations, and supposed to be near impossible for Russia to lobby us. I think that argument would be some kind of anarcholibertarian which isn't really my bad but might be popular on here.
- herbst 9y agoThanks for this insight. This is the first time someone gave me arguments that make actual sense, instead of 'wrong information is bad mkey'. I can totally see how this is a issue. However as I see this we can not fix this 'issue' without breaking the Internet. But I also see that 'free for all' only leads the to rich getting more influence.
- zimablue 9y agoI agree with what I think your perspective is, that the internet is kind of impossible to regulate. But maybe in this situation it's not so impossible to do something useful, Facebook is so effective at the moment because it's a centralized, surveilling monopolistic social network. This centralisation makes them easy to regulate. You can imagine decentralised networks which would be impossible to regulate but it feels like they'd then also be harder for advertisers/propagandists to access effectively and use to control people's ideas.
- herbst 9y agoSo more regulation is a solution? I mean I see what you are getting at. But this is definitly not the direction we as humanity should go. Regulation can and will just lead to information bubbles and yet again giving the power in the wrong hands, but in that case a central authority instead of a open market.