4 ms·
It's not like their original comment is that opaque, but here's my attempt to break down (translate?): Are we going to continue to allow capitalist enterprise
by gingerrr 3y ago
It's not like their original comment is that opaque, but here's my attempt to break down (translate?):
Are we going to continue to allow capitalist enterprise to have a say in public policy conversation (concessions stands outside the town square)?
Ideally no from an ethics perspective, but then we as a populace need a way to and habit of contributing directly ourselves to fund social services ("dropping a dollar in the plate" - reference to collecting tithe during Catholic services).
They're tired of seeing public services starved of funding, then privatized and replaced by corporate, profit-driven ("plastic") replicas.
Basics of human nature keep undermining our attempts to build giant organizations together. We need to make and keep government a local, small-scale, accountable practice we all participate in, rather than one giant federal tent nobody is connected to - that gets Orwellian.
Hope that helps and hope I represented it faithfully.
- JieJie 3y agoI was thinking specifically journalism and newspapers, which acted as our national "town squares" up until social media killed it. Advertisers would pay for a portion of the page and we would paste in their business card alongside the news and opinions. That's how we used to fund public debate. Now we fund it by watching advertisements scroll past tweets by journalists and politicians, debating and sharing memes. Meta and Twitter reap those profits now. "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." –A.J. Liebling I just think it would be cool if the public had some kind of ownership over the debate, rather than someone else who gets to determine the terms under which it occurs. The internet was supposed to be our public square. Even better if the public can profit from all the money that gets generated from selling our attention. We can use that for public services, like you mention. You did a great job, though. Thanks.
- jakelazaroff 3y agoI guess I don't understand how newspapers running ads against opinion pieces is any different from social networks running ads against posts. Also, that hasn't gone away? The Internet has changed how news publications work, but they definitely still exist! But also, insofar as "town square" means that everyone can contribute, it's a better analogy for the Internet than it ever was for newspapers. There are no gatekeepers! Social media companies may have big megaphones, but they absolutely do not set the terms of acceptable discourse. Like, what is it about the Internet that doesn't fit your description?
- JieJie 3y agoIt does. Perhaps my wry attempt to illustrate that very similarity was lost on you?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- gingerrr 3y agoCheers, appreciate you clarifying!!