3 ms·
> If people want to watch TikTok movies, it is up to their judgement whether that is a good idea or not. That's libertarianism. People, in the aggregate, may n
by bmitc 3y ago
> If people want to watch TikTok movies, it is up to their judgement whether that is a good idea or not.
That's libertarianism. People, in the aggregate, may not possess the tools or knowledge to appropriately make that decision.
> In the worst case scenario we'll be relying on left- and right- wingers to agree on basic facts which should be entertaining viewing.
Are you not familiar with Hollywood, the entertainment industry at large, and who owns and controls it? It isn't middle America, that's for sure.
- woodruffw 3y agoWho, exactly, do you think owns and controls the media?
- bmitc 3y agoIt doesn't matter specifically who in this specific context. I replied to a comment worrying about this leading to entertainment being controlled by smallish groups when that's actually already the case. There are just a handful of corporations cntrolling all media in the U.S. Hollywood's nepotism is infamous and keeps on taking foreign money and shooting for foreign markets.
- woodruffw 3y agoBluntly: you don't get to decide whether it matters; a discussion isn't one-way. If you're going to dogwhistle about fifth columns, anybody has a right to ask you who you're winking about.
- bmitc 3y agoI mean, I answered. What are you wanting to know, exactly? What are you getting at? And bluntly, a discussion is a discussion, meaning I can make an argument. If you disagree, then you can make a counter argument instead of arguing meta principles. So are you claiming that U.S. media is not controlled by a small amount of corporations and thus their executives, and that these companies aren't taking on foreign investment and thus looking to appease said foreign investors? What does it matter what the corporation names are in the context of the comment I replied to?
- lupusreal 3y ago[dead]