4 ms·
> Many of the countries we are discussing have much less significant influence of money on media In absolute terms you are correct, but in relative? Is there r
by Timon3 3y ago
> Many of the countries we are discussing have much less significant influence of money on media
In absolute terms you are correct, but in relative? Is there really a country where the media isn't strongly influenced by the rich and powerful of said country and the world?
- whimsicalism 3y agoThis is a theory of the world that seems pretty non-falsifiable. "The real, uninfluenced people agree with my policy priorities and the only reason they don't is due to money at play." Any example of people disagreeing just proves that there is monetary influence that we haven't yet identified. But I actually think it is somewhat falsifiable. Most people, when polled, are in favor of solving climate change - especially in nordic countries. But when you poll people with imposed costs, ie. $10/mo extra to completely solve climate change - the vast majority are opposed. [0] This seems like people organically responding negatively to costs, not being brainwashed by media - otherwise they wouldn't support solving it in the first place. [0]: https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-higher-electric-bills-combat-climate-change https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-...
- Timon3 3y agoI didn't state a theory, I wrote a simple counter-argument to your position. If you're correct, you should be able to produce evidence that proves your position correct. I don't think you are correct, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
- whimsicalism 3y agothe original commentator indicated that the reason people are against it is due to the influence of money in politics. i feel like i provided evidence against that theory, ball is not in my court