3 ms·

Again, I'm asking about generalized freedom of association. I get the hate for corporations, I do, but if you ban freedom of people to associate, and through th

Again, I'm asking about generalized freedom of association. I get the hate for corporations, I do, but if you ban freedom of people to associate, and through that association, to pool money for a common cause: are you just straight up good with that? The underlying law in Citizen's United didn't just target corporations: it targeted unions, it targeted non-profits. That's why I'm asking about those other cases that would be banned. I understand wanting to ban Evil Inc., but are you ready to ban World Peace Non-Profit, too? Not only that, but Citizens United itself wasn't a corporation. If you have a defensible case, that, yes, that'd be fine, go ahead. But when only individuals can spend money on politics, are we not in the same situation, where Bezos or Musk can afford an ad, but I cannot?

mingus88 8mo ago
Convince me that the solution is not to remove money from the process entirely. I’m just spitballing here but why don’t we have a system where every candidate gets the same allocation of money for ads and it is outlawed to use your own fortune to bankroll your candidacy In a world where social media companies are all run by billionaires, let them pollute the feeds with their candidate of choice. This only speedruns the complete collapse of SM in an era where we can no longer distinguish real discourse from AI And good riddance.
- bobomonkey 8mo ago
  Workaround: I'm rich and would just start up a newspaper that gave my candidates good coverage. In my opinion, this isn't a easy problem if you value freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of people to spend their own money.
  - jmye 8mo ago
    > Workaround: I'm rich and would just start up a newspaper that gave my candidates good coverage. Or buy Twitter.
  - Tadpole9181 8mo ago
    And fix: a functioning government would make a law that outlaws such flagrant abuse of a media company. What, if making murder illegal was hard would you just throw your hands and give up and make murder legal? Why is it that suddenly, when it's about corporations to do whatever they want - including destroy democracy itself - we're little babies who can't possibly lift a single finger to stop it? But that guy who sold an eighth? Implement the full extent of mass surveillance and send a tactical SWAT team to the wrong house to arrest him for 40 years!

mingus88 8mo ago

Convince me that the solution is not to remove money from the process entirely. I’m just spitballing here but why don’t we have a system where every candidate gets the same allocation of money for ads and it is outlawed to use your own fortune to bankroll your candidacy In a world where social media companies are all run by billionaires, let them pollute the feeds with their candidate of choice. This only speedruns the complete collapse of SM in an era where we can no longer distinguish real discourse from AI And good riddance.

bobomonkey 8mo ago
Workaround: I'm rich and would just start up a newspaper that gave my candidates good coverage. In my opinion, this isn't a easy problem if you value freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of people to spend their own money.
- jmye 8mo ago
  > Workaround: I'm rich and would just start up a newspaper that gave my candidates good coverage. Or buy Twitter.
- Tadpole9181 8mo ago
  And fix: a functioning government would make a law that outlaws such flagrant abuse of a media company. What, if making murder illegal was hard would you just throw your hands and give up and make murder legal? Why is it that suddenly, when it's about corporations to do whatever they want - including destroy democracy itself - we're little babies who can't possibly lift a single finger to stop it? But that guy who sold an eighth? Implement the full extent of mass surveillance and send a tactical SWAT team to the wrong house to arrest him for 40 years!