5 ms·

The author is correct that distrust in institutions fuels the demand for disinformation. He conveniently leaves out that this distrust was manufactured, over a

by wilde 6y ago

The author is correct that distrust in institutions fuels the demand for disinformation. He conveniently leaves out that this distrust was manufactured, over a period of years, for profit by many of the outlets he is defending.

teorema 6y ago
Some of it yes, some of it no. I suspect the author and I diverge politically in important ways, and think the piece would have been stronger if it had avoided certain topics. However, I think its main argument is solid and succinct. The problem with limits on free speech is that a certain proportion of what's critical will seem taboo, malformed, or false to the majority until it doesn't. I think this is true regardless of the right vs left leaning nature of those involved.
- PaulHoule 6y ago
  You could make a long list of 'behaviors that undermine the legitimacy of government, media, etc.' Some of those are external attacks, others are generic own goals such as: "CEO and Chairman of the Board are the same person", "Official got 5 figures in speaking fees" as well as specifics, such as the suppression of dissent in the media about the second Gulf War. Anti-war protestors faced only mild repression (the lady who ran our soup kitchen got arrested and spent time in federal prison) but the public never got the facts about the war that pointed to it working out the way it did. That is different from the dumbasses who want to say "black people are stupid" and such.
- GrinningFool 6y ago
  There's also a certain portion that _is_ malformed or false, not just seeming that way to the majority.
username90 6y ago
US governments seems to serve corporate interests no matter who wins elections. It is pretty easy to start distrusting things said by traditional leaders then and seek out alternatives. Basically in USA you have all those lies from the left like "Americans don't want what Europeans have, trying to select such a candidate will just let the even worse Republican get into power and we can't have that!". Obama was an extremely popular president, who had so many traits democrats today would argue makes him unelectable. If Trump went against Obama it wouldn't even have been close, so why are democrats continuing to push their corrupt career politicians who people don't really want to vote for except to get Trump out of office? Edit: To me it seems like democrats care more about keeping corporations happy than winning elections. Keeping a corporation happy is worth a lot of money since it allows you to earn a lot of money in the future as a lobbyist, that is way more important to them than having a bit higher chance of winning an election.
AndrewBissell 6y ago
The distrust was created by the institutions themselves betraying their mandates and the people they were meant to serve at numerous turns.

by wilde 6y ago

teorema 6y ago

Some of it yes, some of it no. I suspect the author and I diverge politically in important ways, and think the piece would have been stronger if it had avoided certain topics. However, I think its main argument is solid and succinct. The problem with limits on free speech is that a certain proportion of what's critical will seem taboo, malformed, or false to the majority until it doesn't. I think this is true regardless of the right vs left leaning nature of those involved.

PaulHoule 6y ago
You could make a long list of 'behaviors that undermine the legitimacy of government, media, etc.' Some of those are external attacks, others are generic own goals such as: "CEO and Chairman of the Board are the same person", "Official got 5 figures in speaking fees" as well as specifics, such as the suppression of dissent in the media about the second Gulf War. Anti-war protestors faced only mild repression (the lady who ran our soup kitchen got arrested and spent time in federal prison) but the public never got the facts about the war that pointed to it working out the way it did. That is different from the dumbasses who want to say "black people are stupid" and such.
GrinningFool 6y ago
There's also a certain portion that _is_ malformed or false, not just seeming that way to the majority.

username90 6y ago

US governments seems to serve corporate interests no matter who wins elections. It is pretty easy to start distrusting things said by traditional leaders then and seek out alternatives. Basically in USA you have all those lies from the left like "Americans don't want what Europeans have, trying to select such a candidate will just let the even worse Republican get into power and we can't have that!". Obama was an extremely popular president, who had so many traits democrats today would argue makes him unelectable. If Trump went against Obama it wouldn't even have been close, so why are democrats continuing to push their corrupt career politicians who people don't really want to vote for except to get Trump out of office? Edit: To me it seems like democrats care more about keeping corporations happy than winning elections. Keeping a corporation happy is worth a lot of money since it allows you to earn a lot of money in the future as a lobbyist, that is way more important to them than having a bit higher chance of winning an election.

AndrewBissell 6y ago

The distrust was created by the institutions themselves betraying their mandates and the people they were meant to serve at numerous turns.