4 ms·

Corporations should have no fucking say in things like this. The blatant corruption in the US is incredible.

• _joel 3y ago
  Not just the US, this kind of lobbying and weaponisation of PR happens all over the world, unfortunately.
  • polygamous_bat 3y ago
    Except when it happens in Bangladesh people have the guts to call it "corruption", unlike US where it's "lobbying and weaponisation of PR".
    • rzazueta 3y ago
      "Lobbying and weaponisation of PR" is just artisinal, organic, farm-to-table corruption.
      • polygamous_bat 3y ago
        IMO it's the opposite, like everything else we have optimized corruption, packaged it in a shiny package, and convinced the populace we either can't live without it or there's no way around it.
    • larkost 3y ago
      I think it is a little more nuanced. The case in this article is pretty bad, and I am certainly inclined to call it both a bad, and an inappropriate influence. But that is mostly because of how they are trying to disguise it as not being from the internet companies. But they are not handing money to a government official (personally) in order to get what they want, and I want to reserve the word "corruption" for things like that. However, I do think that companies should have a voice in how they are regulated. Not control by any means, but a voice. This voice needs to be out in the open (so no backroom deals), and clearly labeled what it is. And regulating this sort of thing is really difficult to get right (in part because of legislators self-interest in these things). Part of the problem here is that money, and the advertising it buys, has become so necessary in our politics. So if money is necessary for people to be able to hear "free speech", how can you prevent or limit people from spending that money? And if the only way candidates can get their message heard is to spend a lot of money, of course they are going to listen to those people and corporations who can provide that money (directly or indirectly). And if that is the way they are going to be listened to, then of course rich people and corporations are going to spend the money. It is a nasty cycle. More generally, the vast majority of the opinions people hear (through advertising and also on various media) are presented in forums where only one side is speaking. To take the case of (Former) President Trump's indictments, his supporters are simply not hearing any voices talking about the merits of the cases. They are only hearing people talk about the potential politicization. Yes, there are lots of places where the merits are being debated, but most people have no interest in broadening their horizons. And the gatekeepers on the political Right have found it is easier to capture attention through rage, and being fair or balanced does not engender the rage they are selling.
      • tremon 3y ago
        they are not handing money to a government official (personally) in order to get what they want, and I want to reserve the word "corruption" for things like that. Can we call it institutionalized corruption then, when the handing of money to policitians is made legal through PACs?
      • specialist 3y ago
        Lobbying (petitioning one's government) is fine. Bribery and corruption are not. When spending cash money to garner influence is considered Freedom Speeches™, something is very, very broken. Further, great wealth inequity and democracy are incompatible. Sure, there's a balance to be worked out. All reasonable observers will agree our current setup is way out of balance.
    • geodel 3y ago
      Right. I am seeing tons of people who want to speak truth to power are moving to Bangladesh from US
• datadeft 3y ago
  Just like making high fructose corn syrup legal in the EU?
  • extraduder_ire 3y ago
    This seems tangential, how is it related? I'm pretty sure HFCS is legal, and I've even eaten products containing it.
    • larkost 3y ago
      The argument is that it is U.S. companies that are insanely competitive at making high-fructose corn syrup, and that the EU has largely banned it as a shield to European companies making other sweeteners (e.g.: sugar). I would argue that the ban on genetically modified organisms (GMO) is a cleaner example of European protectionism (not that all other countries, the U.S. included, do not also practice protectionism). You can find lots of sources for the fact of this near-ban, but this one is nice and pointed: "Because of its low cost and long shelf-life, HFCS is used widely in manufacturing many food products, including candy, throughout the United States. However, due to strict EU regulations, HFCS is banned in much of Europe" https://www.sugarjoy.com/pages/hfcs-gmos-and-trans-fats https://www.sugarjoy.com/pages/hfcs-gmos-and-trans-fats
      • Accujack 3y ago
        >U.S. companies that are insanely competitive at making high-fructose corn syrup They're competitive because it's subsidized, which is what makes it cheaper than sugar in the US.
    • babypuncher 3y ago
      The whole reason soda tastes better outside the US is because bottlers in most other countries still use real sugar. HFCS is cheaper in the US because we heavily subsidize corn production for some reason. So it seems weird to me that people would complain that the EU made it harder for Coca-Cola to make their product taste shittier. There is a reason there is a huge market for "Mexican Coke" throughout the US.
• dang 3y ago
  Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.