6 ms·

Correct, which is why there is a such a strong push to get Facebook to increase censorship. All of this communication freedom is absolutely freaking elites out,

by rsj_hn 5y ago

Correct, which is why there is a such a strong push to get Facebook to increase censorship. All of this communication freedom is absolutely freaking elites out, as their ability to control the discourse has slipped substantially.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
OK, so by many standards I'm "elite" (in terms of net worth, education etc.). But I don't think I'm part of the "elite" you're referring to, and I'm still concerned about the information flows enabled by the internet. Does that make me a member of said elite, or is there something else going on?
- furgooswft13 5y ago
  It makes you a useful idiot.
- alexashka 5y ago
  No, elite is defined by ability to affect non-trivial change within society. If you don't have that ability, you're just upper middle class.
  - davidw 5y ago
    So is the truck driver guy who got elected in NJ 'elite' or not?
    - throwaway6734 5y ago
      Elites are the people I don't like and the more I don't like them the more Elite they are.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      As he is likely to find out if he ever gets re-elected, he will be part of the elite soon, even if he rejects the label (which I am sure he will).
- nawgz 5y ago
  > by many standards I'm "elite" (in terms of net worth High 8 figures+ net worth? Generationally wealthy? With government connections? Otherwise I don't think anyone cares about you
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    Inside the top 10% for net worth would be my criteria for this, and I think many other Americans too. No self-aggrandisement here, I just wouldn't want to pretend to be "an ordinary guy on the street" (whatever that actually means).
    - nawgz 5y ago
      That would make 30 million people “elite”. We mean the 0.01% who enact laws and escape enforcement, not people who live a comfortable life lmao
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        Back up-thread, I had written: > "OK, so by many standards I'm "elite" (in terms of net worth, education etc.). But I don't think I'm part of the "elite" you're referring to" explicitly acknowledging different (simultaneous, potentially overlapping) versions of what "elite" could mean. Yet here you are dickering about one definition versus another.
        nawgz 5y ago
        I surely have never heard any one cast the top 10% of some thing as the "elite" of said domain, so I hoped to enlighten you. I must say though, your emotional control - specifically lack thereof - belies just how not-elite you are. Angry at what a commoner wrote at you on a public forum and trying to cast oneself into the highest tiers of society at the same time... Incredible
- fallingknife 5y ago
  You can rationally be concerned without being one of the "elite". But if your solution involves trusting the real "elites" to censor information, then you would have to be one of them because you trust them to act in your interests.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  I'm not going to try to diagnose you, but in general, the outrage that people have that someone is saying the wrong thing online is exactly what I'm talking about. The definition of "elite" is of course murky, but that does not mean that it's not real. There is a very real process of preference cascades among the discourse of those who hold power in society together with the professional classes that identify with them (even if they themselves do not hold much power). The ability to control the public discourse has collapsed as centralized media has been converted into decentralized social media, which has led to panic and calls to bring social media back to heel. Part of this is the (correct) belief that Trump and other populist phenomena - for example Democratic Socialists and the rise of Bernie Sanders -- are made possible by people being able to communicate with each other directly, bypassing whatever Overton window the major media outlets try to set, and even forming their own tribal Overton windows with no regard to what respectable people at the Heritage Foundation or the New York Times or members of the Davos-set think about this. These outsiders can then win elections or at least threaten to win elections. That creates a moral panic about wrongthink, "misinformation", fact-checker discourse, and general terror that ordinary people are able to communicate freely, form their own opinions, and coordinate without the supervision of elite consensus.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    The point is surely that many people without much power take issue with the discourse that the internet has enabled, and that therefore it is incorrect to hear such opinions and conclude that they can only be about the retention of some kind of power. If you'd like, you could accuse them of "false consciousness" (long a favorite derisive put down from Leninists and their friends), or of simply being patsies for the powerful (more typical of the current US right). So I'm wondering what your explanation of this concern among non-elites?
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      > The point is surely that many people without much power take issue with the discourse that the internet has enabled Well sure, but that's always been the case. E.g. in the past, people who were outside the overton window had no choice but to get mad at views they disagreed with as they had great difficulty in getting their own voices heard. Now they can have their own voices heard. They can make their own overton window and completely ignore someone else's. Point being, there is a democratization at work, but whereas those on the outside always had to put up with disagreeable voices, now elites must also put up with it, which is something they are not used to, indeed they are offended by needing to - it's a real shock to them - and this is where the calls for censorship of social media are coming from.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by rsj_hn 5y ago

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

OK, so by many standards I'm "elite" (in terms of net worth, education etc.). But I don't think I'm part of the "elite" you're referring to, and I'm still concerned about the information flows enabled by the internet. Does that make me a member of said elite, or is there something else going on?

furgooswft13 5y ago
It makes you a useful idiot.
alexashka 5y ago
No, elite is defined by ability to affect non-trivial change within society. If you don't have that ability, you're just upper middle class.
- davidw 5y ago
  So is the truck driver guy who got elected in NJ 'elite' or not?
  - throwaway6734 5y ago
    Elites are the people I don't like and the more I don't like them the more Elite they are.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    As he is likely to find out if he ever gets re-elected, he will be part of the elite soon, even if he rejects the label (which I am sure he will).
nawgz 5y ago
> by many standards I'm "elite" (in terms of net worth High 8 figures+ net worth? Generationally wealthy? With government connections? Otherwise I don't think anyone cares about you
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  Inside the top 10% for net worth would be my criteria for this, and I think many other Americans too. No self-aggrandisement here, I just wouldn't want to pretend to be "an ordinary guy on the street" (whatever that actually means).
  - nawgz 5y ago
    That would make 30 million people “elite”. We mean the 0.01% who enact laws and escape enforcement, not people who live a comfortable life lmao
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      Back up-thread, I had written: > "OK, so by many standards I'm "elite" (in terms of net worth, education etc.). But I don't think I'm part of the "elite" you're referring to" explicitly acknowledging different (simultaneous, potentially overlapping) versions of what "elite" could mean. Yet here you are dickering about one definition versus another.
      - nawgz 5y ago
        I surely have never heard any one cast the top 10% of some thing as the "elite" of said domain, so I hoped to enlighten you. I must say though, your emotional control - specifically lack thereof - belies just how not-elite you are. Angry at what a commoner wrote at you on a public forum and trying to cast oneself into the highest tiers of society at the same time... Incredible
fallingknife 5y ago
You can rationally be concerned without being one of the "elite". But if your solution involves trusting the real "elites" to censor information, then you would have to be one of them because you trust them to act in your interests.
rsj_hn 5y ago
I'm not going to try to diagnose you, but in general, the outrage that people have that someone is saying the wrong thing online is exactly what I'm talking about. The definition of "elite" is of course murky, but that does not mean that it's not real. There is a very real process of preference cascades among the discourse of those who hold power in society together with the professional classes that identify with them (even if they themselves do not hold much power). The ability to control the public discourse has collapsed as centralized media has been converted into decentralized social media, which has led to panic and calls to bring social media back to heel. Part of this is the (correct) belief that Trump and other populist phenomena - for example Democratic Socialists and the rise of Bernie Sanders -- are made possible by people being able to communicate with each other directly, bypassing whatever Overton window the major media outlets try to set, and even forming their own tribal Overton windows with no regard to what respectable people at the Heritage Foundation or the New York Times or members of the Davos-set think about this. These outsiders can then win elections or at least threaten to win elections. That creates a moral panic about wrongthink, "misinformation", fact-checker discourse, and general terror that ordinary people are able to communicate freely, form their own opinions, and coordinate without the supervision of elite consensus.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  The point is surely that many people without much power take issue with the discourse that the internet has enabled, and that therefore it is incorrect to hear such opinions and conclude that they can only be about the retention of some kind of power. If you'd like, you could accuse them of "false consciousness" (long a favorite derisive put down from Leninists and their friends), or of simply being patsies for the powerful (more typical of the current US right). So I'm wondering what your explanation of this concern among non-elites?
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    > The point is surely that many people without much power take issue with the discourse that the internet has enabled Well sure, but that's always been the case. E.g. in the past, people who were outside the overton window had no choice but to get mad at views they disagreed with as they had great difficulty in getting their own voices heard. Now they can have their own voices heard. They can make their own overton window and completely ignore someone else's. Point being, there is a democratization at work, but whereas those on the outside always had to put up with disagreeable voices, now elites must also put up with it, which is something they are not used to, indeed they are offended by needing to - it's a real shock to them - and this is where the calls for censorship of social media are coming from.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]