6 ms·

In the US of 50 years ago, democracy was protected by codes of conduct, honor, and most importantly, strong content moderation in the form of monopolistic legac

In the US of 50 years ago, democracy was protected by codes of conduct, honor, and most importantly, strong content moderation in the form of monopolistic legacy media. All of this went out the door with the rise of social networks and the demise of legacy media. I don't see how democracy has the tools to survive populists with direct connection to the voting public. Even if elections happen in 2028, there's a good chance the pendulum will swing the other way and instead of thinking about moving forward we'll be locked in left/right destructive cycles, with the resulting purging of institutions, dramatic shifts in policies and just chaos all around.

bdangubic 2y ago
this is EXACTLY it. the rise of social media and demise of legacy media weaponized politicians to create flamewars over issues which are great for winning elections but have no real meaning for our day-to-day lives. wokeness, transgender athletes, how many genders we have on the web forms to choose from, how many "immigrants" are we going to deport... are entirely meaningless for 99.98% of the population. instead of talking about how to move the country forward the public discourse is now filled with meaningless "social wars." I do not see a way out of this and I am about as optimistic of a person as you'll find... I mentioned to my colleague few weeks back when we had to change the gender dropdown from tens of options to just two to just stash the changes till 2028 when we'll get 983 options for that same dropdown :)
- nuancebydefault 2y ago
  Personally I don't see a use or benefit of large gender dropdowns. Either keep any existing m/f or simply remove it if you don't need to adress them as her or him. Imo making lists increases chances for stigmatization.
  - aisenik 2y ago
    "Large gender drop downs" is a canard, three is a large number for the purposes of their argument. It's not about gender dropdowns of any size other than exactly two as it's about strict enforcement of a rigid, patriarchal class hierarchy. Accepting "the purpose of a thing is what it does" is important for these times. So is avoiding the epistemic traps of disingenuous actors.
  - feoren 2y ago
    Most internet forms that ask for gender have absolutely no reason to care about that information. Basically, biological sex should matter to healthcare professionals, and gender should matter to virtually nobody. So yes, "simply remove it" should be the answer to this most of the time.
    - bdangubic 2y ago
      I do not work on "internet forms" but medical research :)
southernplaces7 2y ago
>democracy was protected by codes of conduct, honor, and most importantly, strong content moderation in the form of monopolistic legacy media. 50 years ago? Perhaps some of what you describe applied, in very limited form and only if you view a small segment of the media/political landscape with extremely rose-tinted glasses, but go read more of U.S media history to see how completely off base you really are. Media in the United states has spent most of its history being absolutely saturated with extremely yellow, scandal-mongering political hack journalism of the absolute most dishonest kind you can imagine (yes even in the age of social media). This was the case throughout the 19th century, the whole early part of the 20th century and it certainly applied 50 years ago, which would be roughly the late 60's to the 70s. Overall, i'd say you have no idea at all of what you're talking about and pulled this funny notion out of nowhere for the sake of forcing an alarmist point.
- flyinglizard 2y ago
  50 years ago someone like Trump wouldn't have a way to obtain a platform from which he can amass a big enough public following. Anyone that wanted to play had to play nice with the establishment. 50 years ago, editorials mattered. Any messaging of a politician or candidate would be followed with context, analysis or discussion by journalists.
  - fuzzfactor 2y ago
    Even more amazing when you consider that 50 years ago Trump was embarrassingly in the Enquirer quite often in situations not nearly as respectable as Stormy Daniels, and that was only the gossip they could corroborate. Much more was withheld from publication. People were mainly talking about the way he couldn't be trusted with anything. Plus him & Epstein were eventually running buddies at one point. For decades the vast majority of those who even knew Trump existed were aware from the beginning he was a fake and it was just so curious to watch him take the pratfalls that he set himself up for. He only became widely known because he was such a complete failure compared to ordinary businessmen, and he would not shut up about how successful he was, it just emphasized how much he didn't have a clue and he was all PR. It was so cringeworthy people could not help but notice. Some things never change. But under those media conditions he was merely a comic figure for the longest time. Bragging about how rich he is when he's actually bankrupt in more ways than one. It just wouldn't have been very easy to build critical mass among people who would be willing to take him the least bit seriously. Especially about anything concerning money. Now it's too late.
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
Didn't Ben Franklin have his own printing press promoting his views? America's political class got complacent and lazy, and forgot that they have to sell what they were pushing to the American people. They never even FOUGHT the battle of ideas. As they age out/get pushed out new Ben Franklin with their own printing press types will rise.
- amy_petrik 2y ago
  Other part of it, yes, Benny F was quite an edgelord, but it took patience and drive in those days. You couldn't just drop a shitpost in 30 seconds, no, you had to lay out the shitpost in little tiny metal letters, and make copies of the shitpost, painstakingly, one at a time, to distribute. And people didn't come by much reading material in those days, so the shitpost was cherished when acquired. Generally speaking the supply/demand curve of the written word was very much different than it was now. Now, the writing itself and the distribution is automated by machines
  - AlexeyBelov 2y ago
    Why did you create yet another account?

bdangubic 2y ago

this is EXACTLY it. the rise of social media and demise of legacy media weaponized politicians to create flamewars over issues which are great for winning elections but have no real meaning for our day-to-day lives. wokeness, transgender athletes, how many genders we have on the web forms to choose from, how many "immigrants" are we going to deport... are entirely meaningless for 99.98% of the population. instead of talking about how to move the country forward the public discourse is now filled with meaningless "social wars." I do not see a way out of this and I am about as optimistic of a person as you'll find... I mentioned to my colleague few weeks back when we had to change the gender dropdown from tens of options to just two to just stash the changes till 2028 when we'll get 983 options for that same dropdown :)

nuancebydefault 2y ago
Personally I don't see a use or benefit of large gender dropdowns. Either keep any existing m/f or simply remove it if you don't need to adress them as her or him. Imo making lists increases chances for stigmatization.
- aisenik 2y ago
  "Large gender drop downs" is a canard, three is a large number for the purposes of their argument. It's not about gender dropdowns of any size other than exactly two as it's about strict enforcement of a rigid, patriarchal class hierarchy. Accepting "the purpose of a thing is what it does" is important for these times. So is avoiding the epistemic traps of disingenuous actors.
- feoren 2y ago
  Most internet forms that ask for gender have absolutely no reason to care about that information. Basically, biological sex should matter to healthcare professionals, and gender should matter to virtually nobody. So yes, "simply remove it" should be the answer to this most of the time.
  - bdangubic 2y ago
    I do not work on "internet forms" but medical research :)

southernplaces7 2y ago

>democracy was protected by codes of conduct, honor, and most importantly, strong content moderation in the form of monopolistic legacy media. 50 years ago? Perhaps some of what you describe applied, in very limited form and only if you view a small segment of the media/political landscape with extremely rose-tinted glasses, but go read more of U.S media history to see how completely off base you really are. Media in the United states has spent most of its history being absolutely saturated with extremely yellow, scandal-mongering political hack journalism of the absolute most dishonest kind you can imagine (yes even in the age of social media). This was the case throughout the 19th century, the whole early part of the 20th century and it certainly applied 50 years ago, which would be roughly the late 60's to the 70s. Overall, i'd say you have no idea at all of what you're talking about and pulled this funny notion out of nowhere for the sake of forcing an alarmist point.

flyinglizard 2y ago
50 years ago someone like Trump wouldn't have a way to obtain a platform from which he can amass a big enough public following. Anyone that wanted to play had to play nice with the establishment. 50 years ago, editorials mattered. Any messaging of a politician or candidate would be followed with context, analysis or discussion by journalists.
- fuzzfactor 2y ago
  Even more amazing when you consider that 50 years ago Trump was embarrassingly in the Enquirer quite often in situations not nearly as respectable as Stormy Daniels, and that was only the gossip they could corroborate. Much more was withheld from publication. People were mainly talking about the way he couldn't be trusted with anything. Plus him & Epstein were eventually running buddies at one point. For decades the vast majority of those who even knew Trump existed were aware from the beginning he was a fake and it was just so curious to watch him take the pratfalls that he set himself up for. He only became widely known because he was such a complete failure compared to ordinary businessmen, and he would not shut up about how successful he was, it just emphasized how much he didn't have a clue and he was all PR. It was so cringeworthy people could not help but notice. Some things never change. But under those media conditions he was merely a comic figure for the longest time. Bragging about how rich he is when he's actually bankrupt in more ways than one. It just wouldn't have been very easy to build critical mass among people who would be willing to take him the least bit seriously. Especially about anything concerning money. Now it's too late.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago

Didn't Ben Franklin have his own printing press promoting his views? America's political class got complacent and lazy, and forgot that they have to sell what they were pushing to the American people. They never even FOUGHT the battle of ideas. As they age out/get pushed out new Ben Franklin with their own printing press types will rise.

amy_petrik 2y ago
Other part of it, yes, Benny F was quite an edgelord, but it took patience and drive in those days. You couldn't just drop a shitpost in 30 seconds, no, you had to lay out the shitpost in little tiny metal letters, and make copies of the shitpost, painstakingly, one at a time, to distribute. And people didn't come by much reading material in those days, so the shitpost was cherished when acquired. Generally speaking the supply/demand curve of the written word was very much different than it was now. Now, the writing itself and the distribution is automated by machines
- AlexeyBelov 2y ago
  Why did you create yet another account?