9 ms·
Florida passed a similar law, and a bunch of other states are attempting to but are blocked by federal courts. Will be interesting to see if the tech industry a
by mullingitover 11mo ago
Florida passed a similar law, and a bunch of other states are attempting to but are blocked by federal courts. Will be interesting to see if the tech industry allows it, or decides to break up the federal government before it becomes too powerful.
- chistev 11mo agoBreak up the federal government?
- gentooflux 11mo agoI believe they're implying that there's an unhealthy amount of regulatory capture in favor of big tech
- estimator7292 11mo agoWe're already on the fast track to becoming an authoritarian state. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine the next step is dissolving congress and installing a new constitution. Or just throwing it out entirely and defining the law of the land on the whims of a senile man
- ipaddr 11mo ago[flagged]
- paxys 11mo agoThere's no need to dissolve congress. You instead make sure that (1) a single party stays in power (through gerrymandering, voter suppression and more), (2) the courts are stacked with loyalists and (3) the legislature and courts rubber stamp all decisions of the executive regardless of legality or anything else.
- lazide 11mo agoSure, but also why wouldn’t they? It’s historically unpopular as an institution, and clearly toothless.
- victorbjorklund 11mo agoFor the same reason russia and north Korea has elections? It sounds better to pretend the dictator is chosen by the people
- kazen44 11mo agoit is also a very easy pathway to create controlled opposition. When you are a totalitarian dictator without elections, opposition of any kind is hard to control. With faux elections you give people a "choice" which seems reasonable compared the usual extremes in an totalitarian state.
- Sevrene 11mo agoDemocratic institutions only have as much power as they're given.
- lazide 11mo agoHave you not been paying attention?
- Sevrene 11mo agoCan you expand on this, what do you think I'm missing?
- lazide 11mo agothe Weimar Republic (a democracy) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic] certainly never directly voted to make Hitler a dictator - they voted him in, and he used the mechanisms of the state against itself (and crisises, both real and imagined) to seize power completely and become the official Dictator (Fuhrer means ‘leader’ in German). Here is a write up [https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/germany-1933-democracy-dictatorship/ https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/germany-...]. Italy transitioned from a regency into democracy - which the fascists used to seize power and form a dictatorship [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_fascism]. When the USSR collapsed, there was a temporary fledging democracy that started to form - that was then hijacked by Putin and twisted to support his now obvious Dictatorship. In the US, while one can certainly argue ‘they knew what they were voting for’, the Trump voters I knew vehemently denied what is now the obvious plan re: economic policies, starting new wars/crises, etc. that are now the norm. The current actual behavior of the US gov’t seems to align quite well with historical norms on this front, and continue to escalate. If ‘the people give them the power’ means ‘it’s legal’ (aka it is within a law the people’s agents have voted on and made official), or was voted on by the people, it’s clear the vast majority of high profile behavior of the gov’t lately doesn’t care about it. If anything, Democracies seem to be inherently ‘dumb’ when it comes to these types of situations.
- googlywoogly 11mo agoThere's no need to do any of things you mention considering that both parties are owned by the same people and are essentially two faces of the same party in practice. Also - almost all the powers that be - including courts and Congress are already for sale/at the service of big tech.
- leptons 11mo agoBoth sides are not the same,not even close, and the voting record proves it.
- jdmichal 11mo ago> the voting record proves it. Putting on my tin-foil, devils-advocate hat... AKA I don't necessarily believe this but I also have no counter-argument: Mostly performative. When it's decided that something actually needs to pass, then you'll get some sacrificial lambs that vote across the aisle. Typically they'll be close to retirement or from a state where they won't be heavily punished for that specific vote.
- gusgus01 11mo agoI mean at some point arguments like this become more akin to Russell's Teapot. If you're making an almost unfalsifiable claim, then the burden of proof is on you to prove it and not others to disprove it. From a political standpoint, the statement "from a state where they won't be heavily punished for that specific vote" is a weird way to put it, since if you framed it in a positive light it would sound more similar to "the state population falls on both sides of the issue and thus either vote could make sense from their legislator depending on exigent circumstances and other factors" or any number of other explanations depending on the vote and populations.
- leptons 11mo agoIt's not performative when people are losing health insurance and other people are at risk of starving. I agree with holding out on the government shutdown to try to prevent Americans losing healthcare. But when Republicans are absolutely fine with poor people starving so that they can take away people's healthcare, with a bonus that they get to shut down the government and say "see, government doesn't work", it becomes clear that letting the government shut down (especially food program shutdowns) continue is going to hurt more people than the government shutdown is going to help. So, when you say "performative" it sounds like you support the "both sides are the same" meme, but the ideologies are vastly different - one side is fine with people starving indefinitely, and the other actually doesn't want that. I would think at least some of this should be obvious, but I guess not?
- axus 11mo agoDemocracy with Chinese Characteristics
- kazen44 11mo agoatleast the people's republic of china never claims to be a democracy in the liberal western, sense of the word. Politically (on paper atleast) the chinese goverment is very much a marxist state, and it is very clear about that.
- redhed 11mo agoYeah this is usually how it happens. Whether its ancient Rome, modern Russia, Venezuela, etc all the dressings of the old Republic stay but become subverted by an autocrat.
- victorbjorklund 11mo agoYea, US is probably gonna end up as Russia if nothing changes. On paper a democracy with elections. In practice a dictatorship.
- whimsicalism 11mo agoutter nonsense, i truly don't see how people can live in the US and be left with this impression.
- louthy 11mo agoYou also need a country name with 'Democratic' in it: Democratic People's Republic of America. That's how you know it's a fully totalitarian state.
- stackedinserter 11mo agoTBH these steps are not that easy and probably are not possible in a federated country like US.
- joshred 11mo agoGerrymandering already exists. Voter suppression was huge in the past, and may become huge again. The supreme court made sure of that. And also... the supreme court keeps issuing partisan decisions. So... what is left? Number 3? I guess you're arguing that federalism protects people, but how does it do that in a way that isn't already being eroded?
- stackedinserter 11mo agoThere's no voter suppression in US, and it won't stand in courts even if somebody pushes it. Supreme court keeps using partisan decision in favour of Dems and GOP, so it remains balanced. What's left is everything you mentioned.
- pessimizer 11mo agoEverybody seems to have missed the memo that all power was concentrated in the Executive branch since the Bush Doctrine, and that since 2016 people have started insisting that the Executive doesn't even have any obligation to the President, the only important vote left (although limited to choosing between two private clubs funded by the same donors.). If Congress steps away from doing anything but serving donors (helped by the filibuster), and the captured regulators don't have to obey the President, there's actually no democracy left. We're in the impossible situation where Trump not being in control is scarier than Trump being in control. Even scarier is that the people saying that we're on the way to becoming an authoritarian state are saying that because they think that the voters get too much say. Authoritarianism is when we don't beatify Dr. Fauci, or agree that it's fine for pregnant women to take Tylenol. The upper middle class, in its complete narcissism and fall into self-indulgent fantasy, is entirely focused on aesthetics. edit: when replies that say that there's already a problem, but seem to be heretical about the covid response get flagkilled, there's a blessed opinion. I have no idea how elite echochambers are supposed to avoid an authoritarian state. Your bosses are kissing Trump's ass, and you're working hard doing things that advance their agenda. They couldn't do it without you.
- whimsicalism 11mo agoI will bet you up to $1000 at 2:1 odds that in 5 years we will still have the same constitution and congress will not have been dissolved at any point. perhaps we ought to consider banning social media for adults or maybe just dystopian movies.
- fridder 11mo agoI do wonder about the normalization of dystopian ideas. Take even a show like Scandal. The fact that one of the big reveals is that billionaires stole the election by targeted hacking of election machines is kinda messed up.
- wat10000 11mo agoRight, because there's no need to change the Constitution when you have a captured Supreme Court to help you ignore it, and no need to dissolve Congress when they've steadily made themselves less and less relevant over the past few decades.
- XorNot 11mo agoRussia still has a constitution, a parliament, separation of powers, and an independent judiciary. It even has opposition political parties and elections. And yet...
- whimsicalism 11mo agoMotte meet Bailey
- rusk 11mo agoIt was a clever riff on the current situation where business tells government
- kube-system 11mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn%27s_Early_Light:_Taking_Back_Washington_to_Save_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn%27s_Early_Light:_Taking_B... That is basically what the Heritage Foundation wants to do.
- delfinom 11mo agoNot going to help the tech industry given their largest audience bases are in blue states, who will happily just regulate them to death if the federal government doesn't.
- mullingitover 11mo ago> In an effort to curtail the organization’s outsized influence, Facebook announced Monday that it would be implementing new steps to ensure the breakup of the U.S. government before it becomes too powerful. [1] I'm old enough to remember when The Onion didn't just report the news. [1] https://theonion.com/facebook-announces-plan-to-break-up-u-s-government-bef-1844121902/ https://theonion.com/facebook-announces-plan-to-break-up-u-s...
- betteryet 11mo agoHow about we break up the tech industry instead? This muskian "I am above laws so I'll break up the USA/EU" is asinine and societies should come down on it like a ton of bricks.
- eddythompson80 11mo agoIs the assumption that non "tech industry" communities (e.g: voat, parler, ovaries, gab, truth, lemmy, mastodon, 4chan, 8chan, etc) are less likely to be a problem or to negatively impact teens than the mainstream "big tech" ones (e.g: facebook, twitter, youtube, tiktok, reddit, etc)?
- rockertalker 11mo agoI think if you run a website as a main source of your business profitable or not you’re in the tech industry. It’s a question of scale not industry classification or purpose classification.
- betteryet 11mo agoNot my point. The original comment said the tech industry can decide to break up the federal government because they don't want to be forced to clean up their act. Societies should be stronger than any industry and fight to maintain freedom, health, peace, and prosperity. If the tech industry is against that, then they should be the ones broken up.
- jMyles 11mo ago> Societies should be stronger than any industry and fight to maintain freedom, health, peace, and prosperity. I think (I hope!) we all agree with this sentiment. But societies also need to be stronger than states, especially in an age of connection and sharing. States are the main source of uncertainty and violence in the world right now, and I think it's reasonable to hope that the internet will bring the age of peace we pray for. Obviously the social media giants are not it. They are closer to states than they are to algorithms. But I'm wary of siding with states over web apps. What we need are healthier (meaning, chiefly, more decentralized and less rent-seeking) web apps.
- hearsathought 11mo ago> Florida passed a similar law, and a bunch of other states are attempting to but are blocked by federal courts. When much of government ( federal, state, local ) communication is done via social meda, would it be legal to ban anyone from accessing it? Or are official government social media sites required to be accessible to everyone?
- stevage 11mo agoThe Australian ban doesn't block anyone from accessing content.
- yieldcrv 11mo agoUnless the social media site puts up super random login gates and A/B testing anti-patterns that blocks you from accessing content?
- jedberg 11mo agoPeople under 18 don't have the same rights.
- Lerc 11mo agoAgreed. What rights should they have though?
- Aloisius 11mo agoIn the US, children's right to free speech has only very narrow exceptions compared to an adult. The Supreme Court has even struck down state bans on selling violent video games to children because it violates a child's first amendment rights. A full ban on social media full of protected speech? That passing Constitutional muster would require some legal gymnastics and overwhelming scientific evidence of harm - evidence that is sorely lacking despite what people believe.
- mullingitover 11mo ago> That passing Constitutional muster would require some legal gymnastics In the previous era of principles, sure. In The Year of Our Dear Leader, 2025? The Republican Supreme Court just needs the order from above, and the Constitution will say what the ruler says it says.