5 ms·

FWIW I think there is a major breakdown of The West underway that begun when China effectively ripped Western ideology apart after the end of the cold war. The

FWIW I think there is a major breakdown of The West underway that begun when China effectively ripped Western ideology apart after the end of the cold war. The Western ideology after WW2 was that liberal markets (eventually) implied (rise of) a democracy with civil liberties. China showed that this ideology is false by creating liberal-enough markets while retaining absolute state control (and the Chinese state has vastly concentrated its power, and the power within the Chinese state has been vastly concentrated as well, to the point of it effectively being a Fuhrerstate). Meanwhile The East has shown that so-called illiberal democracies can be widely accepted by the people. And the US are currently testing the hypothesis whether free speech is survivable for a democratic society in the presence of so-called social media. I strongly suspect these are going to be the sucker-punch for The West in combination with Covid-related economic crises. It is likely the liberal era is going to end within this decade.

shadowgovt 6y ago
Essentially, the international scope of the communications tools online has allowed for free-speech absolutism to be hacked by the propaganda methods refined via the Cold War. the NYT isn't highly likely to publish things that source to Russian propaganda ops, because they employ fact-checkers, care about pedigree of information, and change their editorial process in light of system failures. They get tripped from time-to-time, but the same trick doesn't usually work twice. My relatives on Facebook? Not so much. Nor did Facebook (until recently) care to put an editorial eye to advertising as long as the money was green. It is not a guarantee that a system structured like this is healthy for democracy, nor is it a guarantee that a democracy doesn't destabilize under it.
- rmrfstar 6y ago
  > the NYT isn't highly likely to publish things that source to Russian propaganda ops, The people who lied us into Iraq?
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    Yes, those people. As I said, they get tripped from time-to-time, but they modify their process when it happens. In that case, they had multiple intelligence agency sources feeding them the same bad data, so their cross-checks failed. They've down-sampled the reliability of those sources in subsequent years.
    - rmrfstar 6y ago
      Everything about your response screams "naivete". The NYTimes role in society is packaging official narratives for mass consumption. Their MO is mindlessly repeating whatever the IC tells them. This is not a new concept [1]. [1] https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/orwells-proposed-introduction-to-animal-farm https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/orwells-proposed-introduc...
      - shadowgovt 6y ago
        How are alternatives working out? Because we're watching people worry so much about an Orwellian future that they're running headlong into a Stephensonian future.
        rmrfstar 6y ago
        The difference between Orwell and Stephenson is that Orwell spent time as a police officer in Burma, and a solider in Spain. Stephenson does not understand the corrupting influence of power the way Orwell does. And the alternatives are fantastic, for those who chose to use them intelligently.
        shadowgovt 6y ago
        If we're going to require intelligence for the whole system to succeed, we're setting ourselves up for failure. Half of everyone is below average. > The difference between Orwell and Stephenson is that Orwell spent time as a police officer in Burma, and a solider in Spain. Stephenson does not understand the corrupting influence of power... So you're saying Orwell has practical experience, such that one should weigh his musings on the subject more highly, while Stephenson is some rando expositing from a place he doesn't understand? Fascinating. What happens if a bunch of people just disagree with your argumentum ab auctoritate and accept Stephenson's musings anyway? That would result in a bad outcome? Should we have a mechanism in place to tilt people towards Orwell's interpretation over Stephenson (such as, hypothetically, putting one and not the other on the required reading curricula of schools)? If not, what happens if the Stephensonian interpretation of risks wins out?

shadowgovt 6y ago

Essentially, the international scope of the communications tools online has allowed for free-speech absolutism to be hacked by the propaganda methods refined via the Cold War. the NYT isn't highly likely to publish things that source to Russian propaganda ops, because they employ fact-checkers, care about pedigree of information, and change their editorial process in light of system failures. They get tripped from time-to-time, but the same trick doesn't usually work twice. My relatives on Facebook? Not so much. Nor did Facebook (until recently) care to put an editorial eye to advertising as long as the money was green. It is not a guarantee that a system structured like this is healthy for democracy, nor is it a guarantee that a democracy doesn't destabilize under it.

rmrfstar 6y ago
> the NYT isn't highly likely to publish things that source to Russian propaganda ops, The people who lied us into Iraq?
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  Yes, those people. As I said, they get tripped from time-to-time, but they modify their process when it happens. In that case, they had multiple intelligence agency sources feeding them the same bad data, so their cross-checks failed. They've down-sampled the reliability of those sources in subsequent years.
  - rmrfstar 6y ago
    Everything about your response screams "naivete". The NYTimes role in society is packaging official narratives for mass consumption. Their MO is mindlessly repeating whatever the IC tells them. This is not a new concept [1]. [1] https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/orwells-proposed-introduction-to-animal-farm https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/orwells-proposed-introduc...
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      How are alternatives working out? Because we're watching people worry so much about an Orwellian future that they're running headlong into a Stephensonian future.
      - rmrfstar 6y ago
        The difference between Orwell and Stephenson is that Orwell spent time as a police officer in Burma, and a solider in Spain. Stephenson does not understand the corrupting influence of power the way Orwell does. And the alternatives are fantastic, for those who chose to use them intelligently.
        shadowgovt 6y ago
        If we're going to require intelligence for the whole system to succeed, we're setting ourselves up for failure. Half of everyone is below average. > The difference between Orwell and Stephenson is that Orwell spent time as a police officer in Burma, and a solider in Spain. Stephenson does not understand the corrupting influence of power... So you're saying Orwell has practical experience, such that one should weigh his musings on the subject more highly, while Stephenson is some rando expositing from a place he doesn't understand? Fascinating. What happens if a bunch of people just disagree with your argumentum ab auctoritate and accept Stephenson's musings anyway? That would result in a bad outcome? Should we have a mechanism in place to tilt people towards Orwell's interpretation over Stephenson (such as, hypothetically, putting one and not the other on the required reading curricula of schools)? If not, what happens if the Stephensonian interpretation of risks wins out?