Idk... That's a little abstract for me. Anyone can write and distribute the good version of this article. Major publication, a nobody-reads-it blog whatever...

Idk... That's a little abstract for me. Anyone can write and distribute the good version of this article. Major publication, a nobody-reads-it blog whatever.... If they're practiced at this type of work... It's probably a few days worth of work... Probably spread out over a longer period. It's possible to do this in a way worth reading and writing. The better version would do well on HN. Where is it? Why do we get this version? Why did economist publish this very? I don't think HN is being manipulated as an "effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion."" There's a reading of Chomsky whereby this is at least partially emergent. There's a reading of Chomsky (maybe closer to his intent) where it's all a big conspiracy, with market forces filling the space where a belief in wide-scale collusion is untenable. That is, imo, crossing the line into superstition. The alternative is thateconomist science writing is an abstract product, like code, like education, like a lot of things. It can suck, or it can be better without conspiracy, or secular prophecy.