4 ms·
There's a reason "the rich" were scare quoted. I also think it's an oversimplification. It suffices merely that there is some well-resourced entity that appears
by jerf 4mo ago
There's a reason "the rich" were scare quoted. I also think it's an oversimplification. It suffices merely that there is some well-resourced entity that appears to want to use "child age verification" as an obvious trojan horse for increased power and control over the internet.
If you have trouble imagining who might want "increased power and control over the internet", I don't know how to help you. People aren't all nice.
"imagining that "The Rich" have access to some facility to change the world is just untenable."
It's called money. I literally just laid out how to use it and gave an open, public example of it in use that you can use as a template of understanding it. It seems you may be one of the people I'm talking about. Even when presented with what is basically a blueprint and an example of a building that it builds over and over again, on a schedule, you're still unable to process the idea.
- andrewla 4mo agoI'll try one more time -- how many people, that is, individual human beings, do you believe have this capacity and the desire to use it? Is that number, like, 5? Is it 50? Or, more likely, is it 50,000? Of those people, how many successfully do anything with this? None of the pattern you describe is at all effective in a democracy unless you can get people to support your candidate or support your issues or whatever. You can't just buy that. There's no direct path to spending money to make people support you or believe in you or excuse your actions. There is no formula or process that works. All of this hinges on the individual, and I'm extremely unconvinced that personal wealth is an interesting axis. Where personal wealth intersects with power is another matter, but that powerful people can wield power is not an interesting or astute observation.