7 ms·

Yeah, I don't know. The lack of healthcare, kids getting shot in schools, homelessness, increased cost of nearly everything, and now forcing women to give birth

Yeah, I don't know. The lack of healthcare, kids getting shot in schools, homelessness, increased cost of nearly everything, and now forcing women to give birth are issues that are vastly more important than some stupid app store. Don't get me wrong, we should probably do something, but in terms of priority which everyone here should understand, it's lower on the list, which the article also mentions.

parkingrift 4y ago
You don't think all those other issues are related to the rise of the big tech industry in the US? Big tech has absolute control over messaging and distribution of messaging in the US. They are gatekeepers of information and dictators of what information you see. The rise of polarization in the United States is directly correlated with the rise of big tech. It's going to be hard to solve all the problems you mentioned while big tech continues to build platforms that are inherently designed to rip us apart. Engagement at all costs even if the cost is our basic ways of life.
- bastardoperator 4y ago
  No, I don't think that at all. A lot of these issues pre-date big tech. I don't think you actually read the article. Explain to me how Apple is ripping us apart by not allowing other payment platforms on the App store and how being able to pay for in-app purchases through PayPal will make everything right again?
- jjk166 4y ago
  > Big tech has absolute control over messaging and distribution of messaging in the US. If Fox Corporation wants to air something on its cable news station, or if Warner Bros Discovery wants to put something on CNN's website, or if the New York Times wants to print something on its front page, which big tech company can stop them? While a growing number of people get news from alternative sources enabled by some big tech companies, the traditional distribution channels still exist and are pretty much unpenetrated by these competitors. Meanwhile, the polarization we see now started developing long before any of the big tech players became powerful, and indeed before the internet even existed. There are numerous factors influencing the increase in polarizations, such as the decay of traditional social institutions that allowed people of varying beliefs to regularly interact with each other and give people something to talk about besides politics, a shift in political strategy in the late 20th century to make greater use of public opinion polling and focus on more devisive issues, socioeconomic changes that have shifted the balance of power between various groups meaning old political coalitions that maintained common ground have become unworkable, and a general stagnation in society that has driven many to anger and despair. Most tech giants don't particularly desire such polarization. Zuckerberg certainly didn't set out to build the optimal platform for middle aged women to share conspiracy theories. The fact that despite best efforts pretty much every internet platform's algorithm converges towards polarizing content means either no one knows how to make an internet platform that isn't toxic, or no one actually wants such a platform. Either way, any attempt to remedy polarization by regulating big tech is doomed to failure. If we can't find a way to solve the important problems while our society is polarized, they're not going to get solved at all.
decebalus1 4y ago
> The lack of healthcare, kids getting shot in schools, homelessness, increased cost of nearly everything, and now forcing women to give birth are issues .. that will also not be solved by the current administration. Or the following administration for that matter. It's not like the stupid app store has been deprioritized in order for congress to deeply lean into the stringent problems affecting America.
- dan_quixote 4y ago
  It scares me that we all seem to agree that the federal (and state to a lesser degree) government model is no longer going to solve major/existential societal problems. I don't mean the current government - a.k.a. set of legislators - I mean the model will continue to fail after subsequent elections. How many steps away is civil war or revolution?
  - jjk166 4y ago
    Well the reason we don't believe these issues will be solved soon is due to the fact that current beliefs on most of these issues are split almost perfectly 50-50. There's been 14 months in the past 42 years that one party had enough seats in the senate to defeat a filibuster. Eventually demographic and socioeconomic changes will shift the balance of power to one end or another and there will be a major realignment, at which point several of the current hot button issues will be dealt with and we'll get a whole new set of seemingly intractable problems.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Well the reason we don’t believe these issues will be solved soon is due to the fact that current beliefs on most of these issues are split almost perfectly 50-50. They aren’t, though. (Support in the least representative house of the federal legislature may be split almost exactly 50-50, but that’s not the same as opinions on the substantive issues being split that way.)
      - 4y ago
felipellrocha 4y ago
This is just an argument to not do anything in disguise of being rational. (1) We can tackle multiple things at once, (2) some of those things are like the way they are because of the current state of tech: take a look at Amazon trying to buy One Medical as one such example.
MrZongle2 4y ago
"...we should probably do something, but in terms of priority which everyone here should understand, it's lower on the list" Spoiler alert: nothing on the list will get addressed. Business as usual for DC.

parkingrift 4y ago

You don't think all those other issues are related to the rise of the big tech industry in the US? Big tech has absolute control over messaging and distribution of messaging in the US. They are gatekeepers of information and dictators of what information you see. The rise of polarization in the United States is directly correlated with the rise of big tech. It's going to be hard to solve all the problems you mentioned while big tech continues to build platforms that are inherently designed to rip us apart. Engagement at all costs even if the cost is our basic ways of life.

bastardoperator 4y ago
No, I don't think that at all. A lot of these issues pre-date big tech. I don't think you actually read the article. Explain to me how Apple is ripping us apart by not allowing other payment platforms on the App store and how being able to pay for in-app purchases through PayPal will make everything right again?
jjk166 4y ago
> Big tech has absolute control over messaging and distribution of messaging in the US. If Fox Corporation wants to air something on its cable news station, or if Warner Bros Discovery wants to put something on CNN's website, or if the New York Times wants to print something on its front page, which big tech company can stop them? While a growing number of people get news from alternative sources enabled by some big tech companies, the traditional distribution channels still exist and are pretty much unpenetrated by these competitors. Meanwhile, the polarization we see now started developing long before any of the big tech players became powerful, and indeed before the internet even existed. There are numerous factors influencing the increase in polarizations, such as the decay of traditional social institutions that allowed people of varying beliefs to regularly interact with each other and give people something to talk about besides politics, a shift in political strategy in the late 20th century to make greater use of public opinion polling and focus on more devisive issues, socioeconomic changes that have shifted the balance of power between various groups meaning old political coalitions that maintained common ground have become unworkable, and a general stagnation in society that has driven many to anger and despair. Most tech giants don't particularly desire such polarization. Zuckerberg certainly didn't set out to build the optimal platform for middle aged women to share conspiracy theories. The fact that despite best efforts pretty much every internet platform's algorithm converges towards polarizing content means either no one knows how to make an internet platform that isn't toxic, or no one actually wants such a platform. Either way, any attempt to remedy polarization by regulating big tech is doomed to failure. If we can't find a way to solve the important problems while our society is polarized, they're not going to get solved at all.

decebalus1 4y ago

> The lack of healthcare, kids getting shot in schools, homelessness, increased cost of nearly everything, and now forcing women to give birth are issues .. that will also not be solved by the current administration. Or the following administration for that matter. It's not like the stupid app store has been deprioritized in order for congress to deeply lean into the stringent problems affecting America.

dan_quixote 4y ago
It scares me that we all seem to agree that the federal (and state to a lesser degree) government model is no longer going to solve major/existential societal problems. I don't mean the current government - a.k.a. set of legislators - I mean the model will continue to fail after subsequent elections. How many steps away is civil war or revolution?
- jjk166 4y ago
  Well the reason we don't believe these issues will be solved soon is due to the fact that current beliefs on most of these issues are split almost perfectly 50-50. There's been 14 months in the past 42 years that one party had enough seats in the senate to defeat a filibuster. Eventually demographic and socioeconomic changes will shift the balance of power to one end or another and there will be a major realignment, at which point several of the current hot button issues will be dealt with and we'll get a whole new set of seemingly intractable problems.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Well the reason we don’t believe these issues will be solved soon is due to the fact that current beliefs on most of these issues are split almost perfectly 50-50. They aren’t, though. (Support in the least representative house of the federal legislature may be split almost exactly 50-50, but that’s not the same as opinions on the substantive issues being split that way.)
    - 4y ago

felipellrocha 4y ago

This is just an argument to not do anything in disguise of being rational. (1) We can tackle multiple things at once, (2) some of those things are like the way they are because of the current state of tech: take a look at Amazon trying to buy One Medical as one such example.

MrZongle2 4y ago

"...we should probably do something, but in terms of priority which everyone here should understand, it's lower on the list" Spoiler alert: nothing on the list will get addressed. Business as usual for DC.