3 ms·

> we have no precedent or words of wisdom to guide us - we're on our own More like US politics has imposed a global capitalist free-for-all on this front for

> we have no precedent or words of wisdom to guide us - we're on our own More like US politics has imposed a global capitalist free-for-all on this front for their benefit, and the consequences are catching up. One faction maybe will want to have some governance and regulation down the road, while the other faction wants Donald Trump back on Twitter.

somenameforme 4y ago
I think one of the main reasons that the US was able to improve so dramatically over the British Empire, in terms of the freedoms of citizens, was that it didn't have the existing conflicts of interest. Calling for the end of the monarchy be a capital offense punishable by death (even today it's still legally punishable by life imprisonment [1], though not enforced) is quite handy when you're that monarchy, but not so hot from the perspective of the freedoms of the citizens. So too today, a handful of corporations controlling the vast majority of media and digital discussion is extremely handy from the perspective of the powers that be. Don't want people engaging in politically inconvenient discussion about e.g. the possibility of a disease having escaped from a lab? Simply "encourage" your "corporate partners" to censor that discussion and you've probably done far more in terms of suppression of speech than even a law could have, without ever having to concern yourself with that pesky piece of paper called a constitution. And even better, there's no concern about a loss of face when you decide such discussion is in your geopolitical interests a few months later, and decide to take a hard 180 on it. The point I'm making here is that this isn't really one faction vs another, but more of the interests of entrenched corporate and political powers against the interests of society as a whole. And so seeking to solve this with regulation or governance is going to be somewhat more than difficult. It's like trying to end the two-party system. Nearly everybody in society would agree some sort of proportional representation system would be better (and also immediately end gerrymandering, which is exclusively a product of district based first-past-the-post voting), but the problem is that the 2 parties in power have 0 interest in ever ending the 2-party system, unless it's to replace it with a 1-party system. [1] - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/13/calling-abolition-monarchy-illegal-uk-justice-ministry https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/13/calling-abol...

somenameforme 4y ago

I think one of the main reasons that the US was able to improve so dramatically over the British Empire, in terms of the freedoms of citizens, was that it didn't have the existing conflicts of interest. Calling for the end of the monarchy be a capital offense punishable by death (even today it's still legally punishable by life imprisonment [1], though not enforced) is quite handy when you're that monarchy, but not so hot from the perspective of the freedoms of the citizens. So too today, a handful of corporations controlling the vast majority of media and digital discussion is extremely handy from the perspective of the powers that be. Don't want people engaging in politically inconvenient discussion about e.g. the possibility of a disease having escaped from a lab? Simply "encourage" your "corporate partners" to censor that discussion and you've probably done far more in terms of suppression of speech than even a law could have, without ever having to concern yourself with that pesky piece of paper called a constitution. And even better, there's no concern about a loss of face when you decide such discussion is in your geopolitical interests a few months later, and decide to take a hard 180 on it. The point I'm making here is that this isn't really one faction vs another, but more of the interests of entrenched corporate and political powers against the interests of society as a whole. And so seeking to solve this with regulation or governance is going to be somewhat more than difficult. It's like trying to end the two-party system. Nearly everybody in society would agree some sort of proportional representation system would be better (and also immediately end gerrymandering, which is exclusively a product of district based first-past-the-post voting), but the problem is that the 2 parties in power have 0 interest in ever ending the 2-party system, unless it's to replace it with a 1-party system. [1] - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/13/calling-abolition-monarchy-illegal-uk-justice-ministry https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/13/calling-abol...