4 ms·

The underlying phenomena is not totally new. You always had a little money being made with bumper stickers, NRA memberships, Che Guevara t-shirts, guys on AM ra

by gary_0 3y ago

The underlying phenomena is not totally new. You always had a little money being made with bumper stickers, NRA memberships, Che Guevara t-shirts, guys on AM radio hawking anti-commie spray or magic crystals. But the vast majority just got Walter Cronkite echoing safely average thoughts between wholesome ads for McDonald's and Chevrolet. Radicalization wasn't a billion-dollar market, way back when. (Unless you count rock music or violent video games, or religion.) But for a while now, starting with cable news and now with social media, the invisible hand of the market has been playing with some dangerous memetic levers. In the meantime, Americans' trust in their institutions is languishing at rock bottom[0]. And when people lose trust like that, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. Things don't look good, and the problem might be much bigger than YouTube's algorithm. [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/06/06/public-trust-in-government-1958-2022/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/06/06/public-trust...

mvncleaninst 3y ago
> In the meantime, Americans' trust in their institutions is languishing at rock bottom[0]. And when people lose trust like that, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. Things don't look good, and the problem might be much bigger than YouTube's algorithm. Why is trust in institutions considered good in itself? If institutions don't behave in a way that engenders trust, why is that the fault of the citizenry? It's like being told by an abuser that they aren't abusive Why are we framing trust as a moral imperative here? Why is it that all other governments need to earn the trust of their citizenry, but the American government for some reason is entitled to it a priori?
- gary_0 3y ago
  > Why are we framing trust as a moral imperative here? I'm not. Where did you get that impression? I was merely pointing out the fact of declining trust (with data). As for why it's declining, it's obviously a complex issue: the initial causes, and the attitudes that can become ingrained to prevent the situation from improving (why act in good faith if people will always assume ill intent?), how tensions can increase between the different stratas of culture, how people become more isolated and self-interested out of a sense of survival necessity. And how capitalism will, well, capitalize on this environment, and have its own effect in turn.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - mvncleaninst 3y ago
    > And how capitalism will, well, capitalize on this environment, and have its own effect in turn. I'm with you on both this and trust (with one caveat). I get the impression that you talk about trust in individuals and trust in institutions as the same thing. They aren't the same thing I trust the people I deal with on a regular basis, but the institutions can all go to hell. I find it disheartening that you criticism capitalism, yet talk about "trust in institutions" like it's a good thing. The institutions are agents of capitalism. The politicians, newspapers, the C suite, all of them are defenders of capitalism > and the attitudes that can become ingrained to prevent the situation from improving (why act in good faith if people will always assume ill intent?) I have no idea why you talk about "trust in institutions" in one comment, and then try to associate it with trust in individuals. People don't need to "make peace" with institutions in order to trust each other. This attitude is conservative in nature
    - gary_0 3y ago
      No, I'm talking about trust in institutions. When I ask "why act in good faith if...", I mean as an agent of an institution. > but the institutions can all go to hell On the spectrum of whether present institutions are always our friend or if they are irretrievably malicious and evil, the extremes are not good places to be. One end is idiotically naive, and the other means we're imminently going to suffer in a civil war or be enslaved. Maybe there's productive room in the middle, where we can try to make things better, however unlikely that might seem? Otherwise, assuming a foregone conclusion might cause you to allow that conclusion.
      - mvncleaninst 3y ago
        > One end is idiotically naive, and the other means we're imminently going to suffer in a civil war or be enslaved. We aren't stuck with the institutions that we have. We have the resources to create new ones as old ones die out. Some institutions could go to hell and the world would keep spinning. And I don't think the possible outcomes are restricted to a civil war or slavery, we have no idea what the set of possible outcomes even is. If people choose to get rid of them, that's their choice to make, and it's a choice that many aren't even aware of If institutions have nothing to fear because they know that the population is psychologically dependent on them, then what is going to make them accountable? Other institutions?

by gary_0 3y ago

mvncleaninst 3y ago

> In the meantime, Americans' trust in their institutions is languishing at rock bottom[0]. And when people lose trust like that, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. Things don't look good, and the problem might be much bigger than YouTube's algorithm. Why is trust in institutions considered good in itself? If institutions don't behave in a way that engenders trust, why is that the fault of the citizenry? It's like being told by an abuser that they aren't abusive Why are we framing trust as a moral imperative here? Why is it that all other governments need to earn the trust of their citizenry, but the American government for some reason is entitled to it a priori?

gary_0 3y ago
> Why are we framing trust as a moral imperative here? I'm not. Where did you get that impression? I was merely pointing out the fact of declining trust (with data). As for why it's declining, it's obviously a complex issue: the initial causes, and the attitudes that can become ingrained to prevent the situation from improving (why act in good faith if people will always assume ill intent?), how tensions can increase between the different stratas of culture, how people become more isolated and self-interested out of a sense of survival necessity. And how capitalism will, well, capitalize on this environment, and have its own effect in turn.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mvncleaninst 3y ago
  > And how capitalism will, well, capitalize on this environment, and have its own effect in turn. I'm with you on both this and trust (with one caveat). I get the impression that you talk about trust in individuals and trust in institutions as the same thing. They aren't the same thing I trust the people I deal with on a regular basis, but the institutions can all go to hell. I find it disheartening that you criticism capitalism, yet talk about "trust in institutions" like it's a good thing. The institutions are agents of capitalism. The politicians, newspapers, the C suite, all of them are defenders of capitalism > and the attitudes that can become ingrained to prevent the situation from improving (why act in good faith if people will always assume ill intent?) I have no idea why you talk about "trust in institutions" in one comment, and then try to associate it with trust in individuals. People don't need to "make peace" with institutions in order to trust each other. This attitude is conservative in nature
  - gary_0 3y ago
    No, I'm talking about trust in institutions. When I ask "why act in good faith if...", I mean as an agent of an institution. > but the institutions can all go to hell On the spectrum of whether present institutions are always our friend or if they are irretrievably malicious and evil, the extremes are not good places to be. One end is idiotically naive, and the other means we're imminently going to suffer in a civil war or be enslaved. Maybe there's productive room in the middle, where we can try to make things better, however unlikely that might seem? Otherwise, assuming a foregone conclusion might cause you to allow that conclusion.
    - mvncleaninst 3y ago
      > One end is idiotically naive, and the other means we're imminently going to suffer in a civil war or be enslaved. We aren't stuck with the institutions that we have. We have the resources to create new ones as old ones die out. Some institutions could go to hell and the world would keep spinning. And I don't think the possible outcomes are restricted to a civil war or slavery, we have no idea what the set of possible outcomes even is. If people choose to get rid of them, that's their choice to make, and it's a choice that many aren't even aware of If institutions have nothing to fear because they know that the population is psychologically dependent on them, then what is going to make them accountable? Other institutions?