3 ms·

I wish I would see in other countries this same new reach on new channels and new media, but I just don't. It's almost like only neonazis know what a tiktok is,

by soco 2y ago

I wish I would see in other countries this same new reach on new channels and new media, but I just don't. It's almost like only neonazis know what a tiktok is, while the very few historical parties members trying it are stuck at "fellow kids" approach. Not even on Facebook, called home of the boomers, are they even trying. I'm sorry but I can call this only stupidity, fully agree with your points, and hope those folks learn the new lessons as well.

rich_sasha 2y ago
I think politicians only learn this when in opposition, and for long enough. Only once they see that what worked for them N years ago is falling flat and flatter again on its face, do they change. By the way, I think that's a clear benefit of a multi-party system. When there's only two, you don't really compete for most of your voters, because they will vote for you no matter what. It is only the marginal voters that need your attention, so there's plenty of opportunity to slack off. But when you can't take your own electorate for granted, you suddenly become much more attune to how you need to reach them.
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
Power flows from controlling the media. Those who have that power lock out those who are outside the Overton Window, and the further they are outside, the more they are locked out. Those who are out have to turn to fringe media in order to get their message out at all. But in the internet age, "fringe media" can become mainstream rather quickly - more quickly than the old gatekeepers can keep up. The gatekeepers think in terms of "we control these media, and they're the only media that matters", rather than "we control access to information, no matter via what medium. If there's a new medium that starts to become important, we need to control it." So the outsiders sometimes become powerful on a new medium, and then the medium becomes important, and now they're powerful on an important medium. In some ways, it's good that there's a way to do an end run around the gatekeepers. But in other ways, the people who do it are... often not the ones you would wish to have success at controlling any medium.

by soco 2y ago

rich_sasha 2y ago

I think politicians only learn this when in opposition, and for long enough. Only once they see that what worked for them N years ago is falling flat and flatter again on its face, do they change. By the way, I think that's a clear benefit of a multi-party system. When there's only two, you don't really compete for most of your voters, because they will vote for you no matter what. It is only the marginal voters that need your attention, so there's plenty of opportunity to slack off. But when you can't take your own electorate for granted, you suddenly become much more attune to how you need to reach them.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

Power flows from controlling the media. Those who have that power lock out those who are outside the Overton Window, and the further they are outside, the more they are locked out. Those who are out have to turn to fringe media in order to get their message out at all. But in the internet age, "fringe media" can become mainstream rather quickly - more quickly than the old gatekeepers can keep up. The gatekeepers think in terms of "we control these media, and they're the only media that matters", rather than "we control access to information, no matter via what medium. If there's a new medium that starts to become important, we need to control it." So the outsiders sometimes become powerful on a new medium, and then the medium becomes important, and now they're powerful on an important medium. In some ways, it's good that there's a way to do an end run around the gatekeepers. But in other ways, the people who do it are... often not the ones you would wish to have success at controlling any medium.