5 ms·

The Rise and Fall of the Palo Alto Consensus

15 points by tysone 7y ago

umeshunni 7y ago
Just your dose of daily tech-bashing clickbait from NYTimes.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
asdf21 7y ago
>More information has been flowing, circumventing traditional media, political and cultural establishments. But the result hasn’t been more democracy, stronger communities or a world that’s closer together. Countries with weaker social institutions felt the effects of social media most violently and immediately. More information has made more people realize how corrupt and incestuous many powerful institutions are, and they are rebelling against them. Seems very democratic to me.
- charlesism 7y ago
  > and they are rebelling against them. And also against foreigners, minorities, gays, women, liberals, fictional entities. > Seems very democratic to me It is very democratic. It's too early to say whether it's also good for humanity.
cat199 7y ago
the entire premise that companies should be large enough to influence the discourse is what the problem is, not the regulatory framework within which they do this.. bellheads vs netheads 10.0
jacknews 7y ago
Lost me with the subtitle, sorry.
- jacknews 7y ago
  And what, downvote for expressing an opinion - I guess from the OP. Go on DV this too. Pathetic.
- JadeNB 7y ago
  I guess you mean: > A one-size-fits-all internet was supposed to liberate the world. We underestimated the demand for information about how white nationalism is good and vaccines are bad. What about it lost you?
  - jacknews 7y ago
    It's obvious inflammatory hot-button click-bait, and one-sided, targeting the obvious and easy marks, but ignoring other equally culpable elements. I'm rather liberal and have no time for anti-vaxers, racists, homophobes, and other harassers. But if the alt-right has ruined the 'open internet', the PC left, the more extreme elements of 'metoo', various mass-outings/persecutions of less-than-sanctioned-attitudes and so on are at least equally to blame. ie the culture wars are to blame, not any one side. Perhaps the article was in fact more articulate, balanced and nuanced - as I said, the subtitle was enough for me to parse this as just another article inflaming the whole situation and to dismiss it, and I have not, and will not read it.

15 points by tysone 7y ago

umeshunni 7y ago

Just your dose of daily tech-bashing clickbait from NYTimes.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

asdf21 7y ago

>More information has been flowing, circumventing traditional media, political and cultural establishments. But the result hasn’t been more democracy, stronger communities or a world that’s closer together. Countries with weaker social institutions felt the effects of social media most violently and immediately. More information has made more people realize how corrupt and incestuous many powerful institutions are, and they are rebelling against them. Seems very democratic to me.

charlesism 7y ago
> and they are rebelling against them. And also against foreigners, minorities, gays, women, liberals, fictional entities. > Seems very democratic to me It is very democratic. It's too early to say whether it's also good for humanity.

cat199 7y ago

the entire premise that companies should be large enough to influence the discourse is what the problem is, not the regulatory framework within which they do this.. bellheads vs netheads 10.0

jacknews 7y ago

Lost me with the subtitle, sorry.

jacknews 7y ago
And what, downvote for expressing an opinion - I guess from the OP. Go on DV this too. Pathetic.
JadeNB 7y ago
I guess you mean: > A one-size-fits-all internet was supposed to liberate the world. We underestimated the demand for information about how white nationalism is good and vaccines are bad. What about it lost you?
- jacknews 7y ago
  It's obvious inflammatory hot-button click-bait, and one-sided, targeting the obvious and easy marks, but ignoring other equally culpable elements. I'm rather liberal and have no time for anti-vaxers, racists, homophobes, and other harassers. But if the alt-right has ruined the 'open internet', the PC left, the more extreme elements of 'metoo', various mass-outings/persecutions of less-than-sanctioned-attitudes and so on are at least equally to blame. ie the culture wars are to blame, not any one side. Perhaps the article was in fact more articulate, balanced and nuanced - as I said, the subtitle was enough for me to parse this as just another article inflaming the whole situation and to dismiss it, and I have not, and will not read it.