4 ms·

I agree with you, but I think it's a very debatable problem as to whether addressing the result (money buying influence in politics) or the source (voter educat

by ethbro 7y ago

I agree with you, but I think it's a very debatable problem as to whether addressing the result (money buying influence in politics) or the source (voter education) is a better plan of action. Unintended consequences abound, should Citizens United be fully overturned and financing be more tightly policed. Maybe those are good, maybe they're bad. Personally, a 50% tax on any political speech spending, dedicated to funding voter media literacy and education, seems like a better approach. Give everyone the freedom to speak, but teach everyone to listen critically.

kace91 7y ago
There are many issues with that. Many voters don't have the time to spend on political education, nor the interest - I actually think the lack of free time is an issue in a democracy, and it's why elderly people are such an active demographic during elections And the elephant in the room is that propaganda works even on informed people. Just making a name familiar to you is money well spent for marketers, even if you don't buy the claims of the ad it's still an advantage. Media is designed to be addictive in our days. We should start treating it for what it is - if something disguising as news is actively attempting to evoke an emotional response for the reader/listener to get them hooked, that thing is harmful and not a public service (state funded or not). I don't have a solution, but I do think that at some point in the future we'll look at clickbait and disguised ads the same way we look at tobacco or asbestos now.
- ethbro 7y ago
  And yet in most countries people are able to find substantial amounts of time for education in the first ~18 years of their lives. There's time for voter education, that's currently not being used. As to malicious media, I hesitate to advocate censorship before I can come up with an unambiguous, simple test of what qualifies.

by ethbro 7y ago

kace91 7y ago

There are many issues with that. Many voters don't have the time to spend on political education, nor the interest - I actually think the lack of free time is an issue in a democracy, and it's why elderly people are such an active demographic during elections And the elephant in the room is that propaganda works even on informed people. Just making a name familiar to you is money well spent for marketers, even if you don't buy the claims of the ad it's still an advantage. Media is designed to be addictive in our days. We should start treating it for what it is - if something disguising as news is actively attempting to evoke an emotional response for the reader/listener to get them hooked, that thing is harmful and not a public service (state funded or not). I don't have a solution, but I do think that at some point in the future we'll look at clickbait and disguised ads the same way we look at tobacco or asbestos now.

ethbro 7y ago
And yet in most countries people are able to find substantial amounts of time for education in the first ~18 years of their lives. There's time for voter education, that's currently not being used. As to malicious media, I hesitate to advocate censorship before I can come up with an unambiguous, simple test of what qualifies.