5 ms·
Capitalism–Not a Few Bad Actors–Destroyed the Internet
- sn0w_crash 4y ago[flagged]
- memen 4y agoIsn't that kind of the case? Politicians seem to be more and more preoccupied with how well their actions are received by journalists/media, instead of how well their actions actually play out in reality.
- spamizbad 4y agoI would actually say the opposite. We're getting better. In the 80s and 90s campaigns would do all sorts of crazy contortions to prevent getting caught in"gaffes", whereas today politicians just flood the zone with so much content that a misfire won't damage you. Think back to the 80s when Dukakis, in attempt to seem more hawkish to the media, did a tank photo-op that ultimately had the opposite effect[1]. I can't think of anything in modern history that's had a similar impact. Or look at Donald Trump, a candidate who never really cared about what the mainstream media had to say about him, and was openly hostile towards it. He was able to defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016, albeit by some narrow margins in certain states. [1] https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/dukakis-and-the-tank-099119/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/dukakis-and-...
- killdozer 4y ago`Journalists` Is this a new slur or something?
- KZerda 4y agoPretty much. There's been a tendency among reactionary sorts to attack any piece they don't like by saying the writer is "just a journalist", ignoring the actual piece, and ignoring any credentials that the author has, like in this case, the writer of the piece is an Associate Professor at the University of Miami.
- sn0w_crash 4y ago
- andrepd 4y agoThere are plenty of people that dislike a free press.
- andrepd 4y ago"No criticising the state religion!"
- hdhdbdjdjdh 4y agoIs North Korea's Internet a better alternative?
- bamboozled 4y agoCurious why downvoted ?
- ethanbond 4y agoBecause the answer is obviously no and neither the question nor the answer are informative whatsoever.
- jahnu 4y agoBecause it’s a straw man bigger than Kim Jong Il’s ego.
- maxbond 4y agoPretty bad faith comparison. The implication is that the only alternative to capitalism is state repression. This is a false dichotomy. As an aside, I've noticed a lot of accounts avoiding bans recently by registering to make a single comment, like this one. I kinda wonder if they're all the same person, and that now they've run out of ideas for account names & are just using keyboard mash. I don't find this one particularly objectionable (except in that I disagree), I don't think you'd be banned for saying this, but the other comments were literal hate speech.
- ManitobaForMe 4y ago
- AuBon320 4y ago
- andrepd 4y agoIt's the lowest-possible effort response to any criticism of capitalism.
- Super_Jambo 4y agoThe title should be neoliberalism or free-market fundamentalists. There's nothing inherent in the private ownership of capital that stops regulations which force markets to be competitive. And the article isn't even really arguing this, they're using capitalism as a shorthand for 'free markets'.
- syliconadder 4y agoIsn't it hard to divorce free-market from capitalism at this point of time?
- notacoward 4y agoNot at all. They're largely orthogonal to one another, one being about market access and the other about factors of production. In many ways they're even antagonistic; a system that asserts the primacy of capital over labor and treats it preferentially reduces access to markets for those whose primary contribution is labor (which is most of us). The two only seem hard to distinguish or disentangle because people are conditioned not to think too hard about the difference.
- hellisothers 4y agoAcademically maybe, but in practice?
- rektide 4y agoParticularly be because, as Piketty shows, again and again and again, amassed concentrations of captial bend all politics to it, with seeming certain inevitability.
- notacoward 4y ago> they're using capitalism as a shorthand for 'free markets' Not at all; see my response to syliconadder. However, they are misusing the term. What they seem to mean by it is neither capitalism nor free markets but advertising/marketing.
- 4y ago
- rektide 4y agoWe absolutely do demonize a few specific companies, ones that tend to be highly visible already. Ad serving networks & other systems were already proliferating wildly & increasingly vicious about gathering data. But few of those were visible to consumers, & Big Tech, by being consumer-facing, had a much firmer hand on the third rail.ofnthe issue, even though they often were doing better than the emerging ad-industry by lightyears. BigTech is terrifying in that it holds so much data, but gosh darn it's spread much much much less readily than that we were doing before it became so dominant. There werent any controls, if the IAB & their ilk had their way. Tech defends against capitalism.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- tim333 4y agoThe internet seems rather non destroyed to me. I use it daily and it works fine. If you don't like targeted ads etc there are various ways to avoid them. Ad blockers, Ghostery and the like.
- boxed 4y agoAds also create the incentive for spam domains. These are not so easy to block.
- throwaway81523 4y agoWhy is this post flagged? It is interesting, people can agree or disagree with it, but flagging it seems like propaganda. It is mostly about the dominance of data hungry, advertising backed web sites. But I also blame browser companies (I'm looking at you Firefox) for helping that happen.