>The issue is that there is no difference between smell-water and "new thing that solves problems", under capitalism. Yeah, but not just capitalism. Anywhere y

>The issue is that there is no difference between smell-water and "new thing that solves problems", under capitalism. Yeah, but not just capitalism. Anywhere you don't have unelected legislators imposing censorship on what they feel is good and wholesome and what isn't. Competing candidate's platform advertisements in the run-up to a union election in that union's newsletter isn't displaying a lot of capitalism and it's as true there as mop advertisements between talk-show segments on late night tv. (One or more of the candidates might be, gasp, wilfully and knowingly telling, omg, lies!) When the ads are creating a problem that is actually difficult to solve they're revealing a problem that is not the ads themselves. It's a crisis in education and the general public's ability (or the pereception of it) to do a decent job critical thinking and bs detecting. Making cruel fun of ridiculous fear-mongering accross society ought to be the answer to organised lying. When it isn't, getting Zuck & Jack to censor it is kind of a worrying development. Tough to get that back in the bottle even if it's initially done in support of causes you kinda like, coz you know that condition of it only being "for good", (where /you/ define good) will not last. Guaranteed. Never does.