3 ms·

Indeed there are different layers and social media is just the tip, and that's a feature - and it's great because it's multiple barriers to entry; you don't wan

by loceng 6y ago

Indeed there are different layers and social media is just the tip, and that's a feature - and it's great because it's multiple barriers to entry; you don't want an angry mob who seeks violence to have fluidity. Also, cash exists as a payment option - yes, it's slower than digital transactions which is also a feature to limit and slow allocation and in this case, slow the allocation to people wanting to allow open calls for violence. With enough support they could also create their own credit card company, if they can find a government who will be supportive of open calls to violence.

ttt0 6y ago
That's my point, the government. Banking is not a free market. So can we put this nonsense to sleep already? And since you don't seem to be too interested in the free market argument anyway, let me respond to the rest of your comment, including the other one. I don't know if you're aware of it, but your falling empire, the almighty America, is not the only country in the world. The censorship tactics that are deployed right now on the half of the population of the country that famously has the most free speech in the world, will be used against the people in other countries too. The willingness of the corporations to work with authoritarian governments, the obvious example being China, is not exactly a secret. These people hold no moral convictions, they use slave labor for God's sake, just so you can mindlessly consume more useless crap like a new iPhone every year or God knows how many pairs of Nike shoes, as they pander to you with rainbow flags and raised fists. People who are in the front lines against such governments, some of whom you might show "support" to regularly on your favourite social media website, are also being persecuted for the same reasons - calls for violence and terrorism. The people from my country were hailed as heroes after the WWII by the Western world. But today, in some places in the world, people who are doing the same thing and fighting for the same causes that we did are labeled as terrorists. People might belive one thing today and the complete opposite tomorrow. Which is whatever suits the people at the media industry and their employers at the time. And the bottomline is that you yourself might find yourself on the receiving end of the things you think are so great in the near future. The following weeks are not about the left vs the right. Or antiterrorism vs terrorism. Or morality vs lack thereof. Or however you want to frame it to feel good about yourself. It's about escalation or de-escalation. The right completely lost and the left had the upperhand. But for some reason, either stupidity or on purpose, they've chose to go about it in the worst possible way. Get petty, overblow the Capitol shitshow and seek revenge on the right. You might not even agree with that framing, but this is how the right perceives it. And that means escalation. Nothing might happen because of it or everything might happen. But the point is that you've turned the victory of the left into an uncertain future, that no one knows what holds. Sorry for getting carried away, I know this is not a place for my bullshit, but this is basically the only place where I can voice my meaningless opinions that no one cares about.
- loceng 6y ago
  "... your falling empire, the almighty America" - I live in Canada, so technically part of America the continent, however I feel your skepticism or doubt relating to the current state of the US is a lack of understanding of the evolution process - even to the universal mechanism of yin-yang balance and cycle: yin is the state of stagnancy or being stagnant or slow moving, whereas yang is action and movement. The US has in fact been in a yin state due to regulatory capture of bad actors taking over and controlling systems, extracting value, for their own selfish reasons - and leaving less, distributing less for others. Policy wise the different complexes that have reenforced to allow this are easy to shift. The ability for private companies to deplatform who they want is a feature, it's a failsafe against authoritarianism and tyranny - and it's not black and white, all or nothing - it's a spectrum or gradient, and it can be evolved with good core policies like those that will break apart the duopoly and reduce the power of amalgamated mainstream media; I hope you're aware of Andrew Yang and his core policy proposals which will do just that. I'm mentally too tired to reply thoroughly to the rest of what you say, however you're right in that there is a beast on both sides of the duopoly that's integrated with mainstream media who will sensationalize - and stir up both sides however much they can for the sake of views and revenue. So I don't agree with your premise that either side had actual control of what narrative was presented, which is a problem in of itself - and one pro of social media is people like Yang who can share what they've learned and interact with others online without the gatekeeping of TV channels and newspapers, a relatively direct connection to people interest in tuning into your individual channel; 3 days ago he also stated: "For Cable News we should revive the Fairness Doctrine which the FCC had on the books until 1985 that required that you show both sides of a political issue. It was repealed by Reagan. If there was ever a time to bring it back it’s now." - the thread is here where he discusses this: https://twitter.com/JanPerry/status/1347211706162769921 https://twitter.com/JanPerry/status/1347211706162769921 - he begins by saying "There are 3 problems with our media that are fueling polarization: ..." This is a perfectly fine place for your "bullshit" - you didn't name call, so you're all good in my books.
  - ttt0 6y ago
    Is the yin-yang metaphor an intentional pun to Andrew Yang? That's clever, I like it. I'm not sure if I buy this esoteric explanation though. Right now we're back to neoliberalism and neoconservatism, assuming the sky won't fall on our heads tomorrow, so I don't see how that's any better. People got really emotional and their emotions will be once again used to grab even more power and push further policies that benefits everyone, except the people. > The ability for private companies to deplatform who they want is a feature, it's a failsafe against authoritarianism and tyranny - and it's not black and white, all or nothing - it's a spectrum or gradient, and it can be evolved with good core policies like those that will break apart the duopoly and reduce the power of amalgamated mainstream media If you'd listen to the right-libertarians, the conclusion they've reached is that if we would take capitalism without the government to it's full extent, it would be a very authoritarian system. They correctly predicted this tactics of deplatforming from every angle that we can see today, as a way of getting rid of undesirable people who would try to bring back the government. Ironically enough, they were wrong only in that it targeted them first, not the communists. I guess the second part addresses this, and what can I say to that, I wish I could be that optimistic. > So I don't agree with your premise that either side had actual control of what narrative was presented, which is a problem in of itself Sorry, I wasn't clear at all in what I meant. By "the left" and "the right" I generally meant that the people in power on the left went after Trump supporters. It's showing my own biases there I guess in portraying it as the "elites vs people", but to my defense, I'd say it was at least accurately on topic of this thread. And surely there are already more than enough people to go after the right-wingers in power, so I'm sure it's fine. But I agree with you, Reps and right-leaning media are lying to their base just as much as Dems and left-leaning media are lying to their base, if that's what you're saying.

by loceng 6y ago

ttt0 6y ago

That's my point, the government. Banking is not a free market. So can we put this nonsense to sleep already? And since you don't seem to be too interested in the free market argument anyway, let me respond to the rest of your comment, including the other one. I don't know if you're aware of it, but your falling empire, the almighty America, is not the only country in the world. The censorship tactics that are deployed right now on the half of the population of the country that famously has the most free speech in the world, will be used against the people in other countries too. The willingness of the corporations to work with authoritarian governments, the obvious example being China, is not exactly a secret. These people hold no moral convictions, they use slave labor for God's sake, just so you can mindlessly consume more useless crap like a new iPhone every year or God knows how many pairs of Nike shoes, as they pander to you with rainbow flags and raised fists. People who are in the front lines against such governments, some of whom you might show "support" to regularly on your favourite social media website, are also being persecuted for the same reasons - calls for violence and terrorism. The people from my country were hailed as heroes after the WWII by the Western world. But today, in some places in the world, people who are doing the same thing and fighting for the same causes that we did are labeled as terrorists. People might belive one thing today and the complete opposite tomorrow. Which is whatever suits the people at the media industry and their employers at the time. And the bottomline is that you yourself might find yourself on the receiving end of the things you think are so great in the near future. The following weeks are not about the left vs the right. Or antiterrorism vs terrorism. Or morality vs lack thereof. Or however you want to frame it to feel good about yourself. It's about escalation or de-escalation. The right completely lost and the left had the upperhand. But for some reason, either stupidity or on purpose, they've chose to go about it in the worst possible way. Get petty, overblow the Capitol shitshow and seek revenge on the right. You might not even agree with that framing, but this is how the right perceives it. And that means escalation. Nothing might happen because of it or everything might happen. But the point is that you've turned the victory of the left into an uncertain future, that no one knows what holds. Sorry for getting carried away, I know this is not a place for my bullshit, but this is basically the only place where I can voice my meaningless opinions that no one cares about.

loceng 6y ago
"... your falling empire, the almighty America" - I live in Canada, so technically part of America the continent, however I feel your skepticism or doubt relating to the current state of the US is a lack of understanding of the evolution process - even to the universal mechanism of yin-yang balance and cycle: yin is the state of stagnancy or being stagnant or slow moving, whereas yang is action and movement. The US has in fact been in a yin state due to regulatory capture of bad actors taking over and controlling systems, extracting value, for their own selfish reasons - and leaving less, distributing less for others. Policy wise the different complexes that have reenforced to allow this are easy to shift. The ability for private companies to deplatform who they want is a feature, it's a failsafe against authoritarianism and tyranny - and it's not black and white, all or nothing - it's a spectrum or gradient, and it can be evolved with good core policies like those that will break apart the duopoly and reduce the power of amalgamated mainstream media; I hope you're aware of Andrew Yang and his core policy proposals which will do just that. I'm mentally too tired to reply thoroughly to the rest of what you say, however you're right in that there is a beast on both sides of the duopoly that's integrated with mainstream media who will sensationalize - and stir up both sides however much they can for the sake of views and revenue. So I don't agree with your premise that either side had actual control of what narrative was presented, which is a problem in of itself - and one pro of social media is people like Yang who can share what they've learned and interact with others online without the gatekeeping of TV channels and newspapers, a relatively direct connection to people interest in tuning into your individual channel; 3 days ago he also stated: "For Cable News we should revive the Fairness Doctrine which the FCC had on the books until 1985 that required that you show both sides of a political issue. It was repealed by Reagan. If there was ever a time to bring it back it’s now." - the thread is here where he discusses this: https://twitter.com/JanPerry/status/1347211706162769921 https://twitter.com/JanPerry/status/1347211706162769921 - he begins by saying "There are 3 problems with our media that are fueling polarization: ..." This is a perfectly fine place for your "bullshit" - you didn't name call, so you're all good in my books.
- ttt0 6y ago
  Is the yin-yang metaphor an intentional pun to Andrew Yang? That's clever, I like it. I'm not sure if I buy this esoteric explanation though. Right now we're back to neoliberalism and neoconservatism, assuming the sky won't fall on our heads tomorrow, so I don't see how that's any better. People got really emotional and their emotions will be once again used to grab even more power and push further policies that benefits everyone, except the people. > The ability for private companies to deplatform who they want is a feature, it's a failsafe against authoritarianism and tyranny - and it's not black and white, all or nothing - it's a spectrum or gradient, and it can be evolved with good core policies like those that will break apart the duopoly and reduce the power of amalgamated mainstream media If you'd listen to the right-libertarians, the conclusion they've reached is that if we would take capitalism without the government to it's full extent, it would be a very authoritarian system. They correctly predicted this tactics of deplatforming from every angle that we can see today, as a way of getting rid of undesirable people who would try to bring back the government. Ironically enough, they were wrong only in that it targeted them first, not the communists. I guess the second part addresses this, and what can I say to that, I wish I could be that optimistic. > So I don't agree with your premise that either side had actual control of what narrative was presented, which is a problem in of itself Sorry, I wasn't clear at all in what I meant. By "the left" and "the right" I generally meant that the people in power on the left went after Trump supporters. It's showing my own biases there I guess in portraying it as the "elites vs people", but to my defense, I'd say it was at least accurately on topic of this thread. And surely there are already more than enough people to go after the right-wingers in power, so I'm sure it's fine. But I agree with you, Reps and right-leaning media are lying to their base just as much as Dems and left-leaning media are lying to their base, if that's what you're saying.