4 ms·
Thank you for replying. I don't quite get the downvotes, but I assumed that what I said was just uninteresting rather than controversial. > The notion that the
by chmod600 6y ago
Thank you for replying. I don't quite get the downvotes, but I assumed that what I said was just uninteresting rather than controversial.
> The notion that they have "too much" power, however, is a very, very dangerous one.
I didn't advocate for any forcible resolution. I am a strong proponent of the 1st Amendment. There are lots of things we can do, though.
One example of structural change would be to move towards more economic policy at the state level. If fewer battles are happening in D.C., the media will be forced to decentralize a bit to cover state issues.
> The only ethical response to this is rejection.
Rejection by small groups/communities of what they consider "bad" content, or some collective rejection that feels more like censorship (e.g. FB, Twitter, and mainstream media squashing a story in unison)?
The difference here is critical. A collective rejection also centralizes power to an insane level, which is where we are now.
> I am a former singularitarian fast turning luddite.
Haha, me too! (An exaggeration, but not far from the mark.)
- covidthrow 6y ago> Rejection by small groups/communities of what they consider "bad" content, or some collective rejection that feels more like censorship? Voluntary rejection by individuals based on internal principals and a desire to avoid unhealthy media as a personal choice. No cancelling, no censoring, just people deciding not to expose themselves to such things, just as most choose not to drink all day, for example. There may be some social stigma that arises from this, but hopefully not much more than, "Ah, that's too bad." This is all a pipe dream, however...