3 ms·

Sure, but which side here really has the burden of proof that they are best option? It really seems to come down to that. Is the incumbent system really spared

Sure, but which side here really has the burden of proof that they are best option? It really seems to come down to that. Is the incumbent system really spared from the same or parallel criticisms (corruption, inefficiency, accountability) precisely because its incumbent? "We don't want that because it has been shown to be bad" has less of a ring to it these days, when all the same problems are replicated in the existing, private, commodified system. People are not saying "let's do twitter like the USSR would have done it." People are rightly saying: "let's try something different." This place alone, and sometimes despite the crowd in the comments, has taught me more about the ills of ad-based private social networking than anywhere else. It just doesn't seem rational to me to label any drastic changes as filthy communism and just.. Move on

shakezula 5y ago
> It just doesn't seem rational to me to label any drastic changes as filthy communism and just.. Move on Because they don't want to move anywhere or change anything; they will say no to everything because the current system benefits them.
rmk 5y ago
It's not 'filthy communism', and people who suggest nationalizing industries ought to be better informed: they are the ones who are suggesting the dramatic shift from the status quo. I am suggesting that the nationalization suggestion comes from a place of ignorance of the (grave) pitfalls of doing so. Suggesting that industries be nationalized is not just "let's try something different"; it's something that's much more serious and has larger implications that should be weighed carefully, versus a corporation that's only answerable to its shareholders changing how it runs its product.
- beepbooptheory 5y ago
  As long as we are weighing things carefully, and weighing the right things, I'm on board.

shakezula 5y ago

> It just doesn't seem rational to me to label any drastic changes as filthy communism and just.. Move on Because they don't want to move anywhere or change anything; they will say no to everything because the current system benefits them.

rmk 5y ago

It's not 'filthy communism', and people who suggest nationalizing industries ought to be better informed: they are the ones who are suggesting the dramatic shift from the status quo. I am suggesting that the nationalization suggestion comes from a place of ignorance of the (grave) pitfalls of doing so. Suggesting that industries be nationalized is not just "let's try something different"; it's something that's much more serious and has larger implications that should be weighed carefully, versus a corporation that's only answerable to its shareholders changing how it runs its product.

beepbooptheory 5y ago
As long as we are weighing things carefully, and weighing the right things, I'm on board.