12 ms·

Social media incentivizes small 'creators' to espouse outrageous views that mainstream media does not, and that seem vitally important. An easy way to pump out

Social media incentivizes small 'creators' to espouse outrageous views that mainstream media does not, and that seem vitally important. An easy way to pump out a stream of unacceptable, important-sounding views is to (a) be outrageously wrong or offensive, and (b) claim everything mainstream is part of an evil plan to ruin the world. This leads to constant messaging against whatever the underpinnings of a society happen to be. So liberal democracy is in decline where it has been healthiest. I have hope that liberal democracy will rise in regions where it is scarce. The Middle East first, then perhaps China, which we have all written off based on a couple decades (the blink of an eye, in the long run)

prometheus76 9mo ago
Liberal democracy is rooted in Christian ethics. It does not make sense to a Muslim culture or the Chinese culture.
- wat10000 9mo ago
  I imagine the people of Malaysia and Taiwan would be surprised to learn this.
  - red-iron-pine 9mo ago
    Or Indonesia. Or Turkey, which has a long history of Democracy stemming from Attaturk
- thomassmith65 9mo ago
  Democracy is pre-Christian. Liberalism is rooted in Christian sectarianism.
- red-iron-pine 9mo ago
  Ancient Greece sure as hell wasn't Christian
  - 1718627440 9mo ago
    But Christian swallowed Greece Philosophy, until to the point where it is a core part of Christianity. There are much less a break between different high-cultures as people make it be after the fact, but more of a continuous morphing into each other.
    - thomassmith65 9mo ago
      Ancient Greeks and Romans spent more time in the Middle East than they did in Northern Europe. If Christians borrowed from anyone, it was Middle Easterners... ie: themselves. Granted, Islam is not the same as Middle Eastern, but European and the Middle Eastern cultures have interwoven for millennia. The Middle East is not monolithic, either. They have had their own Christian communities ever since the religion was invented. Neither is Europe free of Muslim thought. Spain is an obvious example, but there was also trade, which is how algebra came to Europe.
      - 1718627440 9mo ago
        I don't get you claim. Greek philosophy existed earlier than Christianity, and borrowed e.g. from Egypt, and not really from Israel, which is the cultural branch Christianity evolved from.
        thomassmith65 9mo ago
        Yes, what I meant to convey is that the lands around the Mediterranean constituted a coherent region more than the Northern Mediterranean combined with Northern Europe. Greeks and Romans traveled throughout the area. To a Roman, a northern Barbarian was more exotic than the peoples South of the Mediterranean. We are more similar to Middle Easterners than it might seem, though, granted, Islam today is a huge differentiator.
        1718627440 9mo ago
        Sorry, did you wanted to point out a contradiction or just add to the point? What I mainly disagree with is: > ie: themselves. Those were completely different incompatible cultures. "middle eastern" simply isn't a term, that makes sense for that time as a cultural distinction. > Islam today is a huge differentiator. On yet another note, some claim Islam to be somewhat of a Christian sect.
- thrance 9mo ago
  Christian ethics? What is that exactly? IIRC, "Christianity" used to be very much tied to monarchy in Europe, as well as feudalism. Then it was used to justify slavery. Then apartheid. And now it's sometimes used to justify stripping minorities of their rights. There is no Christian ethics, only people justifying there political views by invoking Jesus.
- burnerzzzzz 9mo ago
  No evidence supports this. “Rule by the people” is in no why an idea unique to Christians. This is simply false info
stfp 9mo ago
Unfortunately I think the social media thing is key. At this point I'm convinced that we need a ban, at least before elections. That probably seems unrealistic but these novel entertainment options have proven to be so toxic to democracy that I don't think there's an alternative.
- RickJWagner 9mo ago
  That’s a great idea. Social media is a poisonous pool of trolls, useful idiots, bots, foreign agents, and people convinced ‘the other side’ is evil. We should restrict it, or at least demand transparency on who is saying things.
somenameforme 9mo ago
What some do not see, and it may even be an age thing, is that over the past ~2 decades the definition of liberal has changed in a very substantial way. In the early 2000s I was anti-war, anti-intervention, pro free speech, pro freedom of equality, against politicians trying to legislate morality or speech in any way, and thought we should have a strong border but with good immigration opportunities to allow the best to come and make the country even better. I was a fairly text book liberal, perhaps a bit more left than average. I still hold, more or less, these same values - yet somehow in contemporary times that's deemed conservative, if not very conservative. Why this happened is an interesting question, but it's ultimately irrelevant. It has happened. And so it's predictably going to have long-term consequences for the parties. Basically we keep using the same names for these ideologies, but the values they represent shift, and even flip flop, in dramatic ways over time frames that, in hindsight, seem extremely rapid. Yet paradoxically, it's not like there's any given year or election where you can officially say that issue [x] suddenly flipped.
- pjc50 9mo ago
  > yet somehow in contemporary times that's deemed conservative, if not very conservative. .. no, I think that sounds pretty capital-L Liberal to me. I think you may have confused the views of a few incredibly online leftists for "contemporary times". Or we get into specific issues and find out what the extreme conservativism actually is.
- wan23 9mo ago
  Liberal still means liberal, and still means all the things you said. Without getting into the merits of any particular side, IMO we have a categorization problem. People use the word liberal for all types of left ideologies, which is a mistake as it makes it hard to pin down what people actually believe. Also the concepts of left and far left (and right and far right) are overused. The combination of these two phenomena make it so that people will say that things leftists do are "more liberal" when they are in fact not liberal at all.
  - 1718627440 9mo ago
    > Liberal still means liberal, and still means all the things you said. To you (and maybe me). Applying political terms is very much political in itself, I would expect the majority of people telling you a different opinion to actually believe that to be the case themselves.
C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 9mo ago
> Social media incentivizes small 'creators' to espouse outrageous views that mainstream media does not, and that seem vitally important You write about this in a negative tone ("outrageous views"). To go for the extremely low hanging fruit, what about when the establishment media tried to mostly ignore Epstein, and it was only the hard push from social media personalities that brought the topic back into the mainstream? What confidence does that leave in the establishment media, and that they are not bought and paid for by the 'ruling pedophile class'? When the establishment media refuses to talk about certain topics, it gives up the control over the narrative on that topic. That is their conscious choice. It is obvious that individuals will rise to fill that gap. Why are you writing about it as if it's a bad thing? Does a liberal democracy even exist without independent media? I think not.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- thomassmith65 9mo ago
  On the contrary, some pre-internet establishment media would have been all over a story about a billionaire and his ring of underage escorts. The National Enquirer, for example.
thrance 9mo ago
People on HN got to stop blaming social media for everything wrong in society. "Small creators" are no more outrageous than the morons parading on Fox News 24/7. The 20th century had its fair share of fascism too, all without social media, why is that? Because the issue isn't actually social media, it's media control by an oligarchical class that pours billions into propping up right wing populism, because it serves their interest better. Liberal democracy can't exist when half the country has been propagandized away from reality. Know that I would rather social media didn't exist, but putting all the blame for our dire political situation on it is very misguided.

prometheus76 9mo ago

Liberal democracy is rooted in Christian ethics. It does not make sense to a Muslim culture or the Chinese culture.

wat10000 9mo ago
I imagine the people of Malaysia and Taiwan would be surprised to learn this.
- red-iron-pine 9mo ago
  Or Indonesia. Or Turkey, which has a long history of Democracy stemming from Attaturk
thomassmith65 9mo ago
Democracy is pre-Christian. Liberalism is rooted in Christian sectarianism.
red-iron-pine 9mo ago
Ancient Greece sure as hell wasn't Christian
- 1718627440 9mo ago
  But Christian swallowed Greece Philosophy, until to the point where it is a core part of Christianity. There are much less a break between different high-cultures as people make it be after the fact, but more of a continuous morphing into each other.
  - thomassmith65 9mo ago
    Ancient Greeks and Romans spent more time in the Middle East than they did in Northern Europe. If Christians borrowed from anyone, it was Middle Easterners... ie: themselves. Granted, Islam is not the same as Middle Eastern, but European and the Middle Eastern cultures have interwoven for millennia. The Middle East is not monolithic, either. They have had their own Christian communities ever since the religion was invented. Neither is Europe free of Muslim thought. Spain is an obvious example, but there was also trade, which is how algebra came to Europe.
    - 1718627440 9mo ago
      I don't get you claim. Greek philosophy existed earlier than Christianity, and borrowed e.g. from Egypt, and not really from Israel, which is the cultural branch Christianity evolved from.
      - thomassmith65 9mo ago
        Yes, what I meant to convey is that the lands around the Mediterranean constituted a coherent region more than the Northern Mediterranean combined with Northern Europe. Greeks and Romans traveled throughout the area. To a Roman, a northern Barbarian was more exotic than the peoples South of the Mediterranean. We are more similar to Middle Easterners than it might seem, though, granted, Islam today is a huge differentiator.
        1718627440 9mo ago
        Sorry, did you wanted to point out a contradiction or just add to the point? What I mainly disagree with is: > ie: themselves. Those were completely different incompatible cultures. "middle eastern" simply isn't a term, that makes sense for that time as a cultural distinction. > Islam today is a huge differentiator. On yet another note, some claim Islam to be somewhat of a Christian sect.
thrance 9mo ago
Christian ethics? What is that exactly? IIRC, "Christianity" used to be very much tied to monarchy in Europe, as well as feudalism. Then it was used to justify slavery. Then apartheid. And now it's sometimes used to justify stripping minorities of their rights. There is no Christian ethics, only people justifying there political views by invoking Jesus.
burnerzzzzz 9mo ago
No evidence supports this. “Rule by the people” is in no why an idea unique to Christians. This is simply false info

stfp 9mo ago

Unfortunately I think the social media thing is key. At this point I'm convinced that we need a ban, at least before elections. That probably seems unrealistic but these novel entertainment options have proven to be so toxic to democracy that I don't think there's an alternative.

RickJWagner 9mo ago
That’s a great idea. Social media is a poisonous pool of trolls, useful idiots, bots, foreign agents, and people convinced ‘the other side’ is evil. We should restrict it, or at least demand transparency on who is saying things.

somenameforme 9mo ago

What some do not see, and it may even be an age thing, is that over the past ~2 decades the definition of liberal has changed in a very substantial way. In the early 2000s I was anti-war, anti-intervention, pro free speech, pro freedom of equality, against politicians trying to legislate morality or speech in any way, and thought we should have a strong border but with good immigration opportunities to allow the best to come and make the country even better. I was a fairly text book liberal, perhaps a bit more left than average. I still hold, more or less, these same values - yet somehow in contemporary times that's deemed conservative, if not very conservative. Why this happened is an interesting question, but it's ultimately irrelevant. It has happened. And so it's predictably going to have long-term consequences for the parties. Basically we keep using the same names for these ideologies, but the values they represent shift, and even flip flop, in dramatic ways over time frames that, in hindsight, seem extremely rapid. Yet paradoxically, it's not like there's any given year or election where you can officially say that issue [x] suddenly flipped.

pjc50 9mo ago
> yet somehow in contemporary times that's deemed conservative, if not very conservative. .. no, I think that sounds pretty capital-L Liberal to me. I think you may have confused the views of a few incredibly online leftists for "contemporary times". Or we get into specific issues and find out what the extreme conservativism actually is.
wan23 9mo ago
Liberal still means liberal, and still means all the things you said. Without getting into the merits of any particular side, IMO we have a categorization problem. People use the word liberal for all types of left ideologies, which is a mistake as it makes it hard to pin down what people actually believe. Also the concepts of left and far left (and right and far right) are overused. The combination of these two phenomena make it so that people will say that things leftists do are "more liberal" when they are in fact not liberal at all.
- 1718627440 9mo ago
  > Liberal still means liberal, and still means all the things you said. To you (and maybe me). Applying political terms is very much political in itself, I would expect the majority of people telling you a different opinion to actually believe that to be the case themselves.

C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 9mo ago

> Social media incentivizes small 'creators' to espouse outrageous views that mainstream media does not, and that seem vitally important You write about this in a negative tone ("outrageous views"). To go for the extremely low hanging fruit, what about when the establishment media tried to mostly ignore Epstein, and it was only the hard push from social media personalities that brought the topic back into the mainstream? What confidence does that leave in the establishment media, and that they are not bought and paid for by the 'ruling pedophile class'? When the establishment media refuses to talk about certain topics, it gives up the control over the narrative on that topic. That is their conscious choice. It is obvious that individuals will rise to fill that gap. Why are you writing about it as if it's a bad thing? Does a liberal democracy even exist without independent media? I think not.

deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
thomassmith65 9mo ago
On the contrary, some pre-internet establishment media would have been all over a story about a billionaire and his ring of underage escorts. The National Enquirer, for example.

thrance 9mo ago

People on HN got to stop blaming social media for everything wrong in society. "Small creators" are no more outrageous than the morons parading on Fox News 24/7. The 20th century had its fair share of fascism too, all without social media, why is that? Because the issue isn't actually social media, it's media control by an oligarchical class that pours billions into propping up right wing populism, because it serves their interest better. Liberal democracy can't exist when half the country has been propagandized away from reality. Know that I would rather social media didn't exist, but putting all the blame for our dire political situation on it is very misguided.