9 ms·

It's worse than that. We're seeing the teaming up of governments and giant corporations to control the narrative and tell people what's true and what isn't. It

It's worse than that. We're seeing the teaming up of governments and giant corporations to control the narrative and tell people what's true and what isn't. It's the literal definition of fascism. And you see it being championed by people as defending against "the greatest threat to our democracy".

lilactown 6y ago
That's not the literal definition of fascism but it's also Not Good(tm).
- busterarm 6y ago
  If you think that's the case, you don't know your history. It's exactly the tactic of Mussolini. Edit: And when he did it, most of the western world/press fawned on him and praised him as a genius until he went and allied himself with Hitler.
  - ketzo 6y ago
    I mean, since this is an argument about semantics > a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader is the definition of fascism. This is a tool often deployed by fascists.
    - busterarm 6y ago
      And saying that something is "the (very) definition of" something is a colloquialism drawing comparison that dates back at least to James Madison and the Federalist Papers. No. 47, if you'd like to read it.
  - eloff 6y ago
    That's still not how you use the word "literally". It is a technique used by fascist regimes, communist regimes, dictatorships (basically totalitarian regimes of all stripes.) It is a separate concept from fascism. EDIT downvoters seem to have weak English skills...
  - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
    Regardless of whether or not that was a tactic of Mussolini, that is most definitely not the definition of fascism.
    - busterarm 6y ago
      You can wait to wake up to a totalitarian government biting you on the nose, but some of us remember that Mussolini was a journalist and rose to power in the media and don't want to let it get that far.
  - JoshuaDavid 6y ago
    Fascism has a specific definition that is not just "whatever Mussolini did".
    - busterarm 6y ago
      Considering that the term itself comes from his movement, the "Fasces of Revolutionary Action", and that he coined the word fascism personally in 1919 (after the word "fascio"), I think at the very least he gets to be attributed the lions' share of it.
      - JoshuaDavid 6y ago
        Newton can be credited as being substantially the inventor of Newtonian Physics. That doesn't make alchemy a sub-field of Newtonian Physics, despite the fact that Newton wrote numerous treatises on alchemy.
        busterarm 6y ago
        Or possibly that alchemy has nothing to do with motion and gravitation. Chemistry isn't a sub-field of Physics either.
        JoshuaDavid 6y ago
        Exactly.
        busterarm 6y ago
        No, we don't agree. He literally coined the term when talking about his movement. If anyone has claim to what the definition was, it's him. But history is written by the winners and I'm sure modern day fascists would like to distance themselves from that history as much as possible...and thus the term gets narrowed and redefined.
        nobody9999 6y ago
        >Chemistry isn't a sub-field of Physics either. Chemistry is just applied Physics. And yes, for all you mathematicians out there, Physics is just applied math. :)
  - Koshkin 6y ago
    To be fair, Hitler himself was not universally recognized as a "bad guy" until, well, later.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      To be depressingly fair, Hitler was never (and is still not) universally recognized as a "bad guy".
- teraku 6y ago
  Yes, it's feudalism
  - jml7c5 6y ago
    How?
    - teraku 6y ago
      Well the OP said: > We're seeing the teaming up of governments and giant corporations to control the narrative and tell people what's true and what isn't. And then he said it's facism. To which I say, no, it's feudalism: > Feudalism, also known as the feudal system, was a combination of the legal, economic, military, and cultural customs [...]. Broadly defined, it was a way of structuring society around relationships that were derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labor. [0] I don't get why people downvote me so much. It's basically a direct answer [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Yes, it's feudalism Its really, really not feudalism, which is highly de-centralized.
    - OJFord 6y ago
      I'm not so sure, I think if GP had expanded on it a little it's an interesting take. Multiple corporations (with their 'fiefdoms') is decentralised from government, in a similar manner to peers being decentralised from government (or the crown). You could either argue 'not as much so', or that 'corporate lobbying, unions, and party donations have a similar influence on policy'; regardless I think it's an interesting idea.
      - teraku 6y ago
        First of all this, but even in the very definition of feudalism it's feudalism: > Feudalism, also known as the feudal system, was a combination of the legal, economic, military, and cultural customs [...]. Broadly defined, it was a way of structuring society around relationships that were derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labor. [0] Don't really get all the downvotes. I could extend more on it, and explain my reasoning, but I feel like HN is too caught in this "tech moguls are saviors" and even if they weren't and they wouldn't be where they are, somebody else would be a bad actor. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism
newacct583 6y ago
> We're seeing the teaming up of governments and giant corporations to control the narrative and tell people what's true and what isn't. That seems like a claim that needs some examples. By itself it's hard to take seriously. Which governments and which corporations are driving which narrative, exactly?
tptacek 6y ago
It has never in the history of western civilization been easier for people to inject random claims into the public discourse. Neither Mike Wallace at 60 Minutes nor Otis Chandler at the LA Times would have given an inch of space for QAnon or antivax, but the "giant corporations" you allude to today do so happily, and at a scale no newspaper publisher would have imagined 50 years ago.
- busterarm 6y ago
  No, before you had to be rich enough to buy the newspaper to print crazy bullshit, but that certainly happened (and still happens) too.
  - oblio 6y ago
    That's still a filter effect. Now, crazy bullshit is being peddled at 100x the rates from before. It's not sustainable.
    - busterarm 6y ago
      Yes, we should have never given those poors access to say whatever is on their minds, right? At least not in front of other people... It'll be the end of civilization. Everyone should agree with the rich and powerful.
      - Der_Einzige 6y ago
        Isn't that basically what the Allegory of the cave is advocating for? If you are uneducated (and almost certainly poor), you do not see reality for how it is, but instead you see shadows against the wall. Only through the process of a dialectical education can you begin to see reality for how it is. As a result, only the educated enlightened individuals should become kings or the guardians of a state. Any system which agrees with this allegory (and most of Western Philosophy implicity agrees with it) also results in the notion that poor people should not be enfranchised at the same level as wealthier people because they cannot be trusted to govern. If you reject this allegory, than the fundamental justification for hierarchy (some are more fit to rule than others) and correspondingly the state is shattered
VBprogrammer 6y ago
The president of the United States has been using these platforms to lie to the entire world unashamedly. For the most part not even the skillful half truths, statistics and selective quoting that politicians are known for, just complete fabrications and nutjob conspiracies. The corporations had the choice to continue to be complicit, silence him completely or provide some balance from other sources. It seems to me that they choice a cautious and sensible approach.
- the-dude 6y ago
  You are talking about Bush the 2nd right?
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    I don't know if you've been under a rock for more than a decade, but, no, Bush the Younger is not President of the United States. (Sure, some of the bad acts under his administration prefigured bad acts under this one.)
    - the-dude 6y ago
      Attic. It is a past tense sentence, just sayin'.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > It is a past tense sentence, just sayin'. "The president of the United States has been using [...]" is present perfect continuous tense (expressing an action continuing in the present that began in the past), not past tense.
        shard 6y ago
        So it could be referring to the office of the president, not a specific president. Politicians lie, it's a commodity across the parties.
    - 6y ago
dragonwriter 6y ago
> We're seeing the teaming up of governments and giant corporations to control the narrative and tell people what's true and what isn't. It's the literal definition of fascism. Well, its arguably corporatism, which exists in lots of non-fascist systems as well as being a part of fascism, and propagandizing the population, which also is done by lots of non-fascists systems, but unless its coupled with totalitarianism and militant, xenophobic nationalism I don't think going "fascism" is literally accurate of the current state, though its definitely a risk (since the propagandization + corporatism easily enables at least totalitarianism, and is also quite leverageable for the rest.)
jimvdv 6y ago
“Literally fascism” is a little overused. I’m not saying governments and corporations teaming up is a good thing, but let’s not use fascism here, that will only make it harder to recognise actual fascism. If corporations and a heavily authoritarian government team up to crack down on anyone who they believe is the slightest treat to the success of some imagined single-minded Volk, then yes we can talk about fascism. Until that time I think you can at best put down an argument for why you believe this censorship situation will be a slippery slope that ends in fascism.
- emboliart 6y ago
  Good point about the Volk. To be noted, contemporary Anglo culture has constructed the photo negative of Volk. Everybody of the Volk is intrinsically broken, worthy of contempt and deameaning. Everybody not of the Volk is intrinsically virtuous, worthy of praise and elevation. History will tell what the consequences of corporatism + negative Volk will be.
- konjin 6y ago
  That is not Fascism. That is Nazism. Words have meanings beyond "things I don't like".
ekianjo 6y ago
If thats your litteral definition of fascism I suggest you get yourself a dictionary. Please dont make blanket statements to describe complex phenomenons.
ccn0p 6y ago
You can see elements of the slippery slope happening with the rewriting of American history in public government-funded schooling. “who controls the past controls the future. who controls the present, controls the past”
- busterarm 6y ago
  I can't imagine what I would do if I had children. Homeschooling for sure.

lilactown 6y ago

That's not the literal definition of fascism but it's also Not Good(tm).

busterarm 6y ago
If you think that's the case, you don't know your history. It's exactly the tactic of Mussolini. Edit: And when he did it, most of the western world/press fawned on him and praised him as a genius until he went and allied himself with Hitler.
- ketzo 6y ago
  I mean, since this is an argument about semantics > a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader is the definition of fascism. This is a tool often deployed by fascists.
  - busterarm 6y ago
    And saying that something is "the (very) definition of" something is a colloquialism drawing comparison that dates back at least to James Madison and the Federalist Papers. No. 47, if you'd like to read it.
- eloff 6y ago
  That's still not how you use the word "literally". It is a technique used by fascist regimes, communist regimes, dictatorships (basically totalitarian regimes of all stripes.) It is a separate concept from fascism. EDIT downvoters seem to have weak English skills...
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  Regardless of whether or not that was a tactic of Mussolini, that is most definitely not the definition of fascism.
  - busterarm 6y ago
    You can wait to wake up to a totalitarian government biting you on the nose, but some of us remember that Mussolini was a journalist and rose to power in the media and don't want to let it get that far.
- JoshuaDavid 6y ago
  Fascism has a specific definition that is not just "whatever Mussolini did".
  - busterarm 6y ago
    Considering that the term itself comes from his movement, the "Fasces of Revolutionary Action", and that he coined the word fascism personally in 1919 (after the word "fascio"), I think at the very least he gets to be attributed the lions' share of it.
    - JoshuaDavid 6y ago
      Newton can be credited as being substantially the inventor of Newtonian Physics. That doesn't make alchemy a sub-field of Newtonian Physics, despite the fact that Newton wrote numerous treatises on alchemy.
      - busterarm 6y ago
        Or possibly that alchemy has nothing to do with motion and gravitation. Chemistry isn't a sub-field of Physics either.
        JoshuaDavid 6y ago
        Exactly.
        busterarm 6y ago
        No, we don't agree. He literally coined the term when talking about his movement. If anyone has claim to what the definition was, it's him. But history is written by the winners and I'm sure modern day fascists would like to distance themselves from that history as much as possible...and thus the term gets narrowed and redefined.
        nobody9999 6y ago
        >Chemistry isn't a sub-field of Physics either. Chemistry is just applied Physics. And yes, for all you mathematicians out there, Physics is just applied math. :)
- Koshkin 6y ago
  To be fair, Hitler himself was not universally recognized as a "bad guy" until, well, later.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    To be depressingly fair, Hitler was never (and is still not) universally recognized as a "bad guy".
teraku 6y ago
Yes, it's feudalism
- jml7c5 6y ago
  How?
  - teraku 6y ago
    Well the OP said: > We're seeing the teaming up of governments and giant corporations to control the narrative and tell people what's true and what isn't. And then he said it's facism. To which I say, no, it's feudalism: > Feudalism, also known as the feudal system, was a combination of the legal, economic, military, and cultural customs [...]. Broadly defined, it was a way of structuring society around relationships that were derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labor. [0] I don't get why people downvote me so much. It's basically a direct answer [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Yes, it's feudalism Its really, really not feudalism, which is highly de-centralized.
  - OJFord 6y ago
    I'm not so sure, I think if GP had expanded on it a little it's an interesting take. Multiple corporations (with their 'fiefdoms') is decentralised from government, in a similar manner to peers being decentralised from government (or the crown). You could either argue 'not as much so', or that 'corporate lobbying, unions, and party donations have a similar influence on policy'; regardless I think it's an interesting idea.
    - teraku 6y ago
      First of all this, but even in the very definition of feudalism it's feudalism: > Feudalism, also known as the feudal system, was a combination of the legal, economic, military, and cultural customs [...]. Broadly defined, it was a way of structuring society around relationships that were derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labor. [0] Don't really get all the downvotes. I could extend more on it, and explain my reasoning, but I feel like HN is too caught in this "tech moguls are saviors" and even if they weren't and they wouldn't be where they are, somebody else would be a bad actor. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism

newacct583 6y ago

> We're seeing the teaming up of governments and giant corporations to control the narrative and tell people what's true and what isn't. That seems like a claim that needs some examples. By itself it's hard to take seriously. Which governments and which corporations are driving which narrative, exactly?

tptacek 6y ago

It has never in the history of western civilization been easier for people to inject random claims into the public discourse. Neither Mike Wallace at 60 Minutes nor Otis Chandler at the LA Times would have given an inch of space for QAnon or antivax, but the "giant corporations" you allude to today do so happily, and at a scale no newspaper publisher would have imagined 50 years ago.

busterarm 6y ago
No, before you had to be rich enough to buy the newspaper to print crazy bullshit, but that certainly happened (and still happens) too.
- oblio 6y ago
  That's still a filter effect. Now, crazy bullshit is being peddled at 100x the rates from before. It's not sustainable.
  - busterarm 6y ago
    Yes, we should have never given those poors access to say whatever is on their minds, right? At least not in front of other people... It'll be the end of civilization. Everyone should agree with the rich and powerful.
    - Der_Einzige 6y ago
      Isn't that basically what the Allegory of the cave is advocating for? If you are uneducated (and almost certainly poor), you do not see reality for how it is, but instead you see shadows against the wall. Only through the process of a dialectical education can you begin to see reality for how it is. As a result, only the educated enlightened individuals should become kings or the guardians of a state. Any system which agrees with this allegory (and most of Western Philosophy implicity agrees with it) also results in the notion that poor people should not be enfranchised at the same level as wealthier people because they cannot be trusted to govern. If you reject this allegory, than the fundamental justification for hierarchy (some are more fit to rule than others) and correspondingly the state is shattered

VBprogrammer 6y ago

The president of the United States has been using these platforms to lie to the entire world unashamedly. For the most part not even the skillful half truths, statistics and selective quoting that politicians are known for, just complete fabrications and nutjob conspiracies. The corporations had the choice to continue to be complicit, silence him completely or provide some balance from other sources. It seems to me that they choice a cautious and sensible approach.

the-dude 6y ago
You are talking about Bush the 2nd right?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  I don't know if you've been under a rock for more than a decade, but, no, Bush the Younger is not President of the United States. (Sure, some of the bad acts under his administration prefigured bad acts under this one.)
  - the-dude 6y ago
    Attic. It is a past tense sentence, just sayin'.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > It is a past tense sentence, just sayin'. "The president of the United States has been using [...]" is present perfect continuous tense (expressing an action continuing in the present that began in the past), not past tense.
      - shard 6y ago
        So it could be referring to the office of the president, not a specific president. Politicians lie, it's a commodity across the parties.
  - 6y ago

dragonwriter 6y ago

> We're seeing the teaming up of governments and giant corporations to control the narrative and tell people what's true and what isn't. It's the literal definition of fascism. Well, its arguably corporatism, which exists in lots of non-fascist systems as well as being a part of fascism, and propagandizing the population, which also is done by lots of non-fascists systems, but unless its coupled with totalitarianism and militant, xenophobic nationalism I don't think going "fascism" is literally accurate of the current state, though its definitely a risk (since the propagandization + corporatism easily enables at least totalitarianism, and is also quite leverageable for the rest.)

jimvdv 6y ago

“Literally fascism” is a little overused. I’m not saying governments and corporations teaming up is a good thing, but let’s not use fascism here, that will only make it harder to recognise actual fascism. If corporations and a heavily authoritarian government team up to crack down on anyone who they believe is the slightest treat to the success of some imagined single-minded Volk, then yes we can talk about fascism. Until that time I think you can at best put down an argument for why you believe this censorship situation will be a slippery slope that ends in fascism.

emboliart 6y ago
Good point about the Volk. To be noted, contemporary Anglo culture has constructed the photo negative of Volk. Everybody of the Volk is intrinsically broken, worthy of contempt and deameaning. Everybody not of the Volk is intrinsically virtuous, worthy of praise and elevation. History will tell what the consequences of corporatism + negative Volk will be.
konjin 6y ago
That is not Fascism. That is Nazism. Words have meanings beyond "things I don't like".

ekianjo 6y ago

If thats your litteral definition of fascism I suggest you get yourself a dictionary. Please dont make blanket statements to describe complex phenomenons.

ccn0p 6y ago

You can see elements of the slippery slope happening with the rewriting of American history in public government-funded schooling. “who controls the past controls the future. who controls the present, controls the past”

busterarm 6y ago
I can't imagine what I would do if I had children. Homeschooling for sure.