6 ms·

Yeah, this is pretty obvious. The government is getting very unpopular right now, just take a look at the like/dislike ratios for any vaccine related announceme

Yeah, this is pretty obvious. The government is getting very unpopular right now, just take a look at the like/dislike ratios for any vaccine related announcements or inflation related announcements. They are just gonna shut the whole party down if they can't spin it the way they want. Very authoritarian. It's not a huge change, but these things happen bit by bit - the US is slowly converging with China.

lostgame 5y ago
Wow. Crazy people still exist on HN. Good reminder.
- uejfiweun 5y ago
  I am not an anti vaxxer or anything, I am just stating what I have seen on youtube on these videos. For example this was after 10 sec of searching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0z3sLYvxX4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0z3sLYvxX4 Thanks for the insult, though. Intolerant closed-minded assholes still exist on HN. Good reminder.
  - colinmhayes 5y ago
    The fact that the number of crazy people who are voicing their opinions is surging is exactly why Google needed to dump the dislike button. The toxicity is clearly causing what will soon be irreparable harm, and political bandwagoning is the main cause. I really don't think pointing out that the number of crazies is on the rise helps your point.
    - ddingus 5y ago
      This is circular and incomplete as an argument. Google did not need to dump dislike buttons. Google, and or others who want them to dump the button, wanted to dump the button. "had to" has no place in this discussion.
      - colinmhayes 5y ago
        I disagree. Youtube is about to face huge regulatory pressure along with Facebook. They need to get ahead of it if they want to come out unscathed. Sure, you can say that no one "has to" do anything, but this was absolutely something that will help them avoid regulation, which seems close enough to "has to" for me.
        ddingus 5y ago
        How does no dislike button help?
        colinmhayes 5y ago
        Stops political trolls from burying things like the surgeon general going on morning tv to ask people to get vaccinated.
        ddingus 5y ago
        That's hand wavy, and definitely not a solid case for "had to." And what regulatory pressure? The US Government has no business dealing with trolls. First Amendment. This and other moves to get around limitations on regulating speech by using private agents is not going to do any real good, and will do considerable harm. Valid, many would argue necessary, dissent is being suppressed in the same fashion, and all that happens to coincide with very high levels of government disapproval. Anyone trying to make the case massive dislikes aimed at major news networks, POTUS and others has to also explain how doing that is not actually suppressing meaningful and justifiable disapproval. Hard case to make. Funny how that all works isn't it? Got anything else?
        ddingus 5y ago
        BTW: The demographics on morning TV are terrible under 60 years old. Asking them to take the vaccine on a venue with a seriously dubious record is not going to be effective. A ton of dislikes happen because of how traditional media giants have used money, political influence and assistance from big tech to shove old school broadcast online as if somehow everyone ignoring them are the problem. I tuned out years ago. I remember the day I saw, "the regime is the weapon of mass destruction" on the then spiffy FOX news scroller at the bottom of the screen. Lies. War of choice for oil rooted in lies. Things did not improve. I began reading foreign press. Began reading indie journalism, and I began talking to others. Every year since, the talking to others has improved. Understanding other people is very high value. Most of the division the same liars shove in the faces of anyone willing to watch is largely manufactured. The reality is people have a lot in common. Their struggles are the same. We all run the same general way, and we all have the same basic needs. One of the more serious reasons to very strongly dislike old media being propped up online is how they drive people to judge others, cultivate fear, blame and shame. "Those other people" "Teaching those other people a lesson" "Both sides" Controversy is often created too. Both sides is often used to justify putting someone, say a scientist, or doctor, up with a loon, or fear monger, idiot. Then have a talking head get them yelling at one another... Nobody needs them to do that and nobody is helped by them doing that. Tons of people, wait for it... Dislike them doing that. Oh, and here is another one! Objectivity. Neutral. Fair. Balance. These, in addition to justifying manufactured controversy and "othering" to the point of otherwise reasonable people being unable to talk to one another, are all employed to help lie about bias. The old media giants have a very clear economic bias and they lie about it, are not objective, and in general do not take feedback, or respond to fact checking by improving. What they do is attack, use their position and economic weight to push critics off the stage... to own the conversation. The bias in economic terms is generally neo liberal, neo conservative and aligned with the Washington Economic Consensus. They do not produce anything from the labor point of view. They do not amplify those voices. Those points of view and voices are aligned with the interests of a majority of people. Tons of reasons for dislikes and those giants could improve. They have not and are instead trying to push competition aside to garner and maintain the illusion of popularity and authority they trade on to produce "news" and commentary which is low value and not compelling or even helpful to a majority of people today. Conflating trolls and crazies, zealots, and others with perfectly legitimate dissent, actual journalists doing actual journalism is all about manufacturing consent. Reputable people publishing hard truths are being suppressed and that is no accident. I could go on for pages here. Given these things going on for decades, is there any wonder so many people dislike? Nope. And the worst? That Surgeon General has made statements that undermine their own credence, on media that torched the public trust for years, and the people who called that out and who have used actual data from informed people doing real science and medicine get punished for "attacking" authorities, who are abusing their authority and squandering the public trust this whole mess we are told is necessary to improve on said public trust! Did you see Jon Stewart do his new show? He has access, is well liked, trusted, and has put these same people into a polite interview where he deftly gets them to say the quiet parts out loud. Same thing the guy did years ago to Tucker Carlson. I do not believe it will work now any better than it did then. Maybe the act gets polished up a bit, some particularly ugly stuff gets walked back and a few better conversations happen. What it will do is get a new generation of people to question and amplify those who have been for some time now. Good. What we need here is not new and more spiffy ways to continue propagandizing people. Enough harm has been done. What we need is non AD driven news and commentary that can speak to people, inform them, empower them and bring class awareness to action. Big tech once presented that to the body politic. It was great. Necessary and very well liked because people saw and felt the value, understanding one another better and how corruption has gone unchecked for too long, doing too much harm. Now that is over. People looking for the next big thing need only follow this trail to find where the hearts and minds of good people will gather and talk about how to improve this mess for their families, themselves and that much better possible future out there.
    - uejfiweun 5y ago
      I agree that the youtube like/dislike ratio is obviously not the best metric to gauge sentiment towards the government. I think it's better to look at opinion polls, which DO back up my point - for instance see https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/09/inflation-concerns-democrats-hope-biden-spending-bills-win-over-voters.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/09/inflation-concerns-democrats... or many other similar articles. I understand where you are coming from, I just wish there was a way to solve these issues other than censorship and removing functionality. Perhaps some sort of reputation score, that would weigh any vote according to your credentials and reputation to roll into some combined metascore... but that might be too close to social credit. Tough problems without obvious solutions.
      - ddingus 5y ago
        The obvious solution is to serve the people. That's not happening and the sell job is getting increasingly harder.
        uejfiweun 5y ago
        Personally I wonder if it is even possible to meet all the demands being placed on governments. The country is composed of such different groups pulling in opposite directions... something could snap at some point. The US's own intelligence apparatus is pessimistic about the ability of the government to adapt to these changes in the next 20 years. Check out the IC's Global Trends 2040 report[1] to see what I'm talking about: a particularly salient quote is as follows: "At the state level, the relationships between societies and their governments in every region are likely to face persistent strains and tensions because of a growing mismatch between what publics need and expect and what governments can and will deliver. Populations in every region are increasingly equipped with the tools, capacity, and incentive to agitate for their preferred social and political goals and to place more demands on their governments to find solutions. At the same time that populations are increasingly empowered and demanding more, governments are coming under greater pressure from new challenges and more limited resources. This widening gap portends more political volatility, erosion of democracy, and expanding roles for alternative providers of governance. Over time, these dynamics might open the door to more significant shifts in how people govern." I think the key phrase here is "expanding roles for alternative providers of governance". It seems like these people expect parts of the government to wither away and for the free market to step in with solutions. [1] https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/GlobalTrends_2040.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/GlobalT...
    - cbozeman 5y ago
      This is such a lazy, garbage take... America has stopped working for 50% of the population, and they know it. The "toxicity" results from media and government telling these people to shut the fuck up and get back to work and stop trying to look behind the curtain. Well the American people aren't falling for the myriad bullshit any longer. The toxicity will go away when ultra-progressive politics aren't shoved down people's throats, when people can actually get a job working 40 hours a week that'll allow them to own a home and raise a family with the partner, and when members of the government stop lying not only to us, but even to Congress. That's how you "fix" these problems... or it's at least a good start.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - mindslight 5y ago
        This is also a lazy take, in that it just assumes the marginalization constitutes a justification for lining up behind disinformation. The problems you reference are real, and are indeed driving discontent. But echo chambers of red herrings and big lies do nothing to actually address the source of those problems - it's just another system of control, driven by a different wing of the same political class. And so if we care about discussing the real issues, rather than just cheering on societal destruction out of spite, we're right back to viewing disinformation promoters as a problem.
        ddingus 5y ago
        They are a problem! CNN, MSNBC, FOX, and friends produce tons of misinformation. Part of this hiding of dislikes boils down to attempts to establish these and other sources as authoritative, and qualified to judge what is misinformation and what is not. A lot of perfectly valid, informative dissent is being lumped in as disinformation, and it's not easy to differentiate. Said dissent often focuses on basic issues impacting many ordinary Americans, or more generally labor. The authoritative sources, as defined by other authorities, all of whom are economically elite, simply do not produce information from the labor point of view. That same point of view has almost no meaningful representation in Congress due to how money in politics works right now too. I do agree with you on calling out a different wing being unproductive.
    - cryptonector 5y ago
      > crazy people Translation: opinions I don't like need suppressing.
      - colinmhayes 5y ago
        Unfortunately, a large percentage of our country seems to be too stupid to distinguish fact from fiction.
        cryptonector 5y ago
        Let's see. 20 years ago you wouldn't have said this. Now you do. Did "a large percentage of our country" go "crazy" as you said two comments up, or "stupid" as you say now, in 20 years? When did this incredible phenomenon start? In 1992, with Bill Clinton's election? In 1994 with that year's Republican wave election? In 2000 with Bush's election? In 2006 with the Democrat wave election? In 2008 with Obama's election? In 2010 with that year's Republican wave election? In 2016 with Trump's election? ... Please tell us. Or does it go back to 1980, 1976, 1968, ...? When did the country go nuts? Or is it just that you dislike one very large set of the polity's opinions so much that you are willing to go to great lengths to have them quashed?
        colinmhayes 5y ago
        They were always stupid, they just didn't have people manipulating them to the same extent before. People being mislead by disinformation goes back at least to the spanish american war, and really much further. But now even more people have the megaphone, so even more people are buying into the disinformation. This comes back to the point of the thread, Youtube knows it is largely culpable for the division within this country, and dislike trolling is one reason why.
        cryptonector 5y ago
        If they were always stupid (got it, not "crazy") and we didn't suppress their speech before, then we don't have to now.
- chrissnell 5y ago
  He made a point and added some speculation. You made a cheap, ad hominem attack. You are breaking the rules here and you are the one that’s out of line. CC @dang
- ddingus 5y ago
  First, you didn't really need to judge anyone. Second, you could have contributed a rebuttal and I wish you had. :(
ddingus 5y ago
Yup. It's manufactured consent and managed down dissent in action.
- uejfiweun 5y ago
  The other thread was deleted, but wanted to comment this: Personally I wonder if it is even possible to meet all the demands being placed on governments. The country is composed of such different groups pulling in opposite directions... something could snap at some point. The US's own intelligence apparatus is pessimistic about the ability of the government to adapt to these changes in the next 20 years. Check out the IC's Global Trends 2040 report[1] to see what I'm talking about: a particularly salient quote is as follows: "At the state level, the relationships between societies and their governments in every region are likely to face persistent strains and tensions because of a growing mismatch between what publics need and expect and what governments can and will deliver. Populations in every region are increasingly equipped with the tools, capacity, and incentive to agitate for their preferred social and political goals and to place more demands on their governments to find solutions. At the same time that populations are increasingly empowered and demanding more, governments are coming under greater pressure from new challenges and more limited resources. This widening gap portends more political volatility, erosion of democracy, and expanding roles for alternative providers of governance. Over time, these dynamics might open the door to more significant shifts in how people govern." I think the key phrase here is "expanding roles for alternative providers of governance". It seems like these people expect parts of the government to wither away and for the free market to step in with solutions. [1] https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/GlobalTrends_2040.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/GlobalT...
  - ddingus 5y ago
    That info you linked dodges around a couple things, potentially more, but these two in particular are illuminating: First: Washington Economic Consensus --And this is both parties being aligned with and giving priority to the interests of people and corporations of significant means. (more money and more command of resources) Second, and root cause of the first: Money in politics. We allow transactions here that are called bribes in many nations, and that's just getting started. John Oliver did a segment on fundraising some while back. New Congress people brought into a grim room with desks and phones and books of people willing to fund their re-election, given just a few minor commitments To sum up: We have a priority problem, and ordinary people just are not a priority.

lostgame 5y ago

Wow. Crazy people still exist on HN. Good reminder.

uejfiweun 5y ago
I am not an anti vaxxer or anything, I am just stating what I have seen on youtube on these videos. For example this was after 10 sec of searching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0z3sLYvxX4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0z3sLYvxX4 Thanks for the insult, though. Intolerant closed-minded assholes still exist on HN. Good reminder.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  The fact that the number of crazy people who are voicing their opinions is surging is exactly why Google needed to dump the dislike button. The toxicity is clearly causing what will soon be irreparable harm, and political bandwagoning is the main cause. I really don't think pointing out that the number of crazies is on the rise helps your point.
  - ddingus 5y ago
    This is circular and incomplete as an argument. Google did not need to dump dislike buttons. Google, and or others who want them to dump the button, wanted to dump the button. "had to" has no place in this discussion.
    - colinmhayes 5y ago
      I disagree. Youtube is about to face huge regulatory pressure along with Facebook. They need to get ahead of it if they want to come out unscathed. Sure, you can say that no one "has to" do anything, but this was absolutely something that will help them avoid regulation, which seems close enough to "has to" for me.
      - ddingus 5y ago
        How does no dislike button help?
        colinmhayes 5y ago
        Stops political trolls from burying things like the surgeon general going on morning tv to ask people to get vaccinated.
        ddingus 5y ago
        That's hand wavy, and definitely not a solid case for "had to." And what regulatory pressure? The US Government has no business dealing with trolls. First Amendment. This and other moves to get around limitations on regulating speech by using private agents is not going to do any real good, and will do considerable harm. Valid, many would argue necessary, dissent is being suppressed in the same fashion, and all that happens to coincide with very high levels of government disapproval. Anyone trying to make the case massive dislikes aimed at major news networks, POTUS and others has to also explain how doing that is not actually suppressing meaningful and justifiable disapproval. Hard case to make. Funny how that all works isn't it? Got anything else?
        ddingus 5y ago
        BTW: The demographics on morning TV are terrible under 60 years old. Asking them to take the vaccine on a venue with a seriously dubious record is not going to be effective. A ton of dislikes happen because of how traditional media giants have used money, political influence and assistance from big tech to shove old school broadcast online as if somehow everyone ignoring them are the problem. I tuned out years ago. I remember the day I saw, "the regime is the weapon of mass destruction" on the then spiffy FOX news scroller at the bottom of the screen. Lies. War of choice for oil rooted in lies. Things did not improve. I began reading foreign press. Began reading indie journalism, and I began talking to others. Every year since, the talking to others has improved. Understanding other people is very high value. Most of the division the same liars shove in the faces of anyone willing to watch is largely manufactured. The reality is people have a lot in common. Their struggles are the same. We all run the same general way, and we all have the same basic needs. One of the more serious reasons to very strongly dislike old media being propped up online is how they drive people to judge others, cultivate fear, blame and shame. "Those other people" "Teaching those other people a lesson" "Both sides" Controversy is often created too. Both sides is often used to justify putting someone, say a scientist, or doctor, up with a loon, or fear monger, idiot. Then have a talking head get them yelling at one another... Nobody needs them to do that and nobody is helped by them doing that. Tons of people, wait for it... Dislike them doing that. Oh, and here is another one! Objectivity. Neutral. Fair. Balance. These, in addition to justifying manufactured controversy and "othering" to the point of otherwise reasonable people being unable to talk to one another, are all employed to help lie about bias. The old media giants have a very clear economic bias and they lie about it, are not objective, and in general do not take feedback, or respond to fact checking by improving. What they do is attack, use their position and economic weight to push critics off the stage... to own the conversation. The bias in economic terms is generally neo liberal, neo conservative and aligned with the Washington Economic Consensus. They do not produce anything from the labor point of view. They do not amplify those voices. Those points of view and voices are aligned with the interests of a majority of people. Tons of reasons for dislikes and those giants could improve. They have not and are instead trying to push competition aside to garner and maintain the illusion of popularity and authority they trade on to produce "news" and commentary which is low value and not compelling or even helpful to a majority of people today. Conflating trolls and crazies, zealots, and others with perfectly legitimate dissent, actual journalists doing actual journalism is all about manufacturing consent. Reputable people publishing hard truths are being suppressed and that is no accident. I could go on for pages here. Given these things going on for decades, is there any wonder so many people dislike? Nope. And the worst? That Surgeon General has made statements that undermine their own credence, on media that torched the public trust for years, and the people who called that out and who have used actual data from informed people doing real science and medicine get punished for "attacking" authorities, who are abusing their authority and squandering the public trust this whole mess we are told is necessary to improve on said public trust! Did you see Jon Stewart do his new show? He has access, is well liked, trusted, and has put these same people into a polite interview where he deftly gets them to say the quiet parts out loud. Same thing the guy did years ago to Tucker Carlson. I do not believe it will work now any better than it did then. Maybe the act gets polished up a bit, some particularly ugly stuff gets walked back and a few better conversations happen. What it will do is get a new generation of people to question and amplify those who have been for some time now. Good. What we need here is not new and more spiffy ways to continue propagandizing people. Enough harm has been done. What we need is non AD driven news and commentary that can speak to people, inform them, empower them and bring class awareness to action. Big tech once presented that to the body politic. It was great. Necessary and very well liked because people saw and felt the value, understanding one another better and how corruption has gone unchecked for too long, doing too much harm. Now that is over. People looking for the next big thing need only follow this trail to find where the hearts and minds of good people will gather and talk about how to improve this mess for their families, themselves and that much better possible future out there.
  - uejfiweun 5y ago
    I agree that the youtube like/dislike ratio is obviously not the best metric to gauge sentiment towards the government. I think it's better to look at opinion polls, which DO back up my point - for instance see https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/09/inflation-concerns-democrats-hope-biden-spending-bills-win-over-voters.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/09/inflation-concerns-democrats... or many other similar articles. I understand where you are coming from, I just wish there was a way to solve these issues other than censorship and removing functionality. Perhaps some sort of reputation score, that would weigh any vote according to your credentials and reputation to roll into some combined metascore... but that might be too close to social credit. Tough problems without obvious solutions.
    - ddingus 5y ago
      The obvious solution is to serve the people. That's not happening and the sell job is getting increasingly harder.
      - uejfiweun 5y ago
        Personally I wonder if it is even possible to meet all the demands being placed on governments. The country is composed of such different groups pulling in opposite directions... something could snap at some point. The US's own intelligence apparatus is pessimistic about the ability of the government to adapt to these changes in the next 20 years. Check out the IC's Global Trends 2040 report[1] to see what I'm talking about: a particularly salient quote is as follows: "At the state level, the relationships between societies and their governments in every region are likely to face persistent strains and tensions because of a growing mismatch between what publics need and expect and what governments can and will deliver. Populations in every region are increasingly equipped with the tools, capacity, and incentive to agitate for their preferred social and political goals and to place more demands on their governments to find solutions. At the same time that populations are increasingly empowered and demanding more, governments are coming under greater pressure from new challenges and more limited resources. This widening gap portends more political volatility, erosion of democracy, and expanding roles for alternative providers of governance. Over time, these dynamics might open the door to more significant shifts in how people govern." I think the key phrase here is "expanding roles for alternative providers of governance". It seems like these people expect parts of the government to wither away and for the free market to step in with solutions. [1] https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/GlobalTrends_2040.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/GlobalT...
  - cbozeman 5y ago
    This is such a lazy, garbage take... America has stopped working for 50% of the population, and they know it. The "toxicity" results from media and government telling these people to shut the fuck up and get back to work and stop trying to look behind the curtain. Well the American people aren't falling for the myriad bullshit any longer. The toxicity will go away when ultra-progressive politics aren't shoved down people's throats, when people can actually get a job working 40 hours a week that'll allow them to own a home and raise a family with the partner, and when members of the government stop lying not only to us, but even to Congress. That's how you "fix" these problems... or it's at least a good start.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - mindslight 5y ago
      This is also a lazy take, in that it just assumes the marginalization constitutes a justification for lining up behind disinformation. The problems you reference are real, and are indeed driving discontent. But echo chambers of red herrings and big lies do nothing to actually address the source of those problems - it's just another system of control, driven by a different wing of the same political class. And so if we care about discussing the real issues, rather than just cheering on societal destruction out of spite, we're right back to viewing disinformation promoters as a problem.
      - ddingus 5y ago
        They are a problem! CNN, MSNBC, FOX, and friends produce tons of misinformation. Part of this hiding of dislikes boils down to attempts to establish these and other sources as authoritative, and qualified to judge what is misinformation and what is not. A lot of perfectly valid, informative dissent is being lumped in as disinformation, and it's not easy to differentiate. Said dissent often focuses on basic issues impacting many ordinary Americans, or more generally labor. The authoritative sources, as defined by other authorities, all of whom are economically elite, simply do not produce information from the labor point of view. That same point of view has almost no meaningful representation in Congress due to how money in politics works right now too. I do agree with you on calling out a different wing being unproductive.
  - cryptonector 5y ago
    > crazy people Translation: opinions I don't like need suppressing.
    - colinmhayes 5y ago
      Unfortunately, a large percentage of our country seems to be too stupid to distinguish fact from fiction.
      - cryptonector 5y ago
        Let's see. 20 years ago you wouldn't have said this. Now you do. Did "a large percentage of our country" go "crazy" as you said two comments up, or "stupid" as you say now, in 20 years? When did this incredible phenomenon start? In 1992, with Bill Clinton's election? In 1994 with that year's Republican wave election? In 2000 with Bush's election? In 2006 with the Democrat wave election? In 2008 with Obama's election? In 2010 with that year's Republican wave election? In 2016 with Trump's election? ... Please tell us. Or does it go back to 1980, 1976, 1968, ...? When did the country go nuts? Or is it just that you dislike one very large set of the polity's opinions so much that you are willing to go to great lengths to have them quashed?
        colinmhayes 5y ago
        They were always stupid, they just didn't have people manipulating them to the same extent before. People being mislead by disinformation goes back at least to the spanish american war, and really much further. But now even more people have the megaphone, so even more people are buying into the disinformation. This comes back to the point of the thread, Youtube knows it is largely culpable for the division within this country, and dislike trolling is one reason why.
        cryptonector 5y ago
        If they were always stupid (got it, not "crazy") and we didn't suppress their speech before, then we don't have to now.
chrissnell 5y ago
He made a point and added some speculation. You made a cheap, ad hominem attack. You are breaking the rules here and you are the one that’s out of line. CC @dang
ddingus 5y ago
First, you didn't really need to judge anyone. Second, you could have contributed a rebuttal and I wish you had. :(

ddingus 5y ago

Yup. It's manufactured consent and managed down dissent in action.

uejfiweun 5y ago
The other thread was deleted, but wanted to comment this: Personally I wonder if it is even possible to meet all the demands being placed on governments. The country is composed of such different groups pulling in opposite directions... something could snap at some point. The US's own intelligence apparatus is pessimistic about the ability of the government to adapt to these changes in the next 20 years. Check out the IC's Global Trends 2040 report[1] to see what I'm talking about: a particularly salient quote is as follows: "At the state level, the relationships between societies and their governments in every region are likely to face persistent strains and tensions because of a growing mismatch between what publics need and expect and what governments can and will deliver. Populations in every region are increasingly equipped with the tools, capacity, and incentive to agitate for their preferred social and political goals and to place more demands on their governments to find solutions. At the same time that populations are increasingly empowered and demanding more, governments are coming under greater pressure from new challenges and more limited resources. This widening gap portends more political volatility, erosion of democracy, and expanding roles for alternative providers of governance. Over time, these dynamics might open the door to more significant shifts in how people govern." I think the key phrase here is "expanding roles for alternative providers of governance". It seems like these people expect parts of the government to wither away and for the free market to step in with solutions. [1] https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/GlobalTrends_2040.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/GlobalT...
- ddingus 5y ago
  That info you linked dodges around a couple things, potentially more, but these two in particular are illuminating: First: Washington Economic Consensus --And this is both parties being aligned with and giving priority to the interests of people and corporations of significant means. (more money and more command of resources) Second, and root cause of the first: Money in politics. We allow transactions here that are called bribes in many nations, and that's just getting started. John Oliver did a segment on fundraising some while back. New Congress people brought into a grim room with desks and phones and books of people willing to fund their re-election, given just a few minor commitments To sum up: We have a priority problem, and ordinary people just are not a priority.