3 ms·

>> I feel like WYSIWYG politics is what most of us want, but probably doesn’t actually work. > then WYSIWYG politics will emerge as a preferred choice. I thin

by jolmg 2mo ago

>> I feel like WYSIWYG politics is what most of us want, but probably doesn’t actually work. > then WYSIWYG politics will emerge as a preferred choice. I think the problem that Waterluvian's is getting at is precisely that WYSIWYG politics is taken as the preferred choice without understanding the implications that make it not actually work. For example, continuing to accept anything that remotely passes as protect-the-children politics without understanding that the consequences are worse than the benefits, even for the children themselves. > If the quality of those two goes up, then WYSIWYG politics will emerge as a preferred choice. If the quality of those two goes up, hopefully people start employing second-order thinking and beyond and realize that WYSIWYG politics may not be what it seems to be at the surface level.

AnthonyMouse 2mo ago
I think you're talking past each other: > For example, continuing to accept anything that remotely passes as protect-the-children politics without understanding that the consequences are worse than the benefits, even for the children themselves. Passing a censorship/surveillance bill using the pretext of protecting children is the opposite of WYSIWYG. The true motive is building an apparatus to use to enforce other authoritarian policies and protecting children is the Trojan horse. If people were better informed about second order effects then that wouldn't work because they would see through the consequences when a pretext is being presented for a bad idea, and then the politicians who attempt it would be more often punished than rewarded. The tactic of lying to people would happen less often because it would be selected against when the number of people who see through you is enough to boot you out of office.
roenxi 2mo ago
> For example, continuing to accept anything that remotely passes as protect-the-children politics without understanding that the consequences are worse than the benefits, even for the children themselves. Have you checked the premise? Usually the waves of fake protect-the-children policies are widely decried, support is fairly thin and the politicians pass it anyway then refuse to revisit the issue ever. It is like the constant aggressive warfare the US is in - the US public clearly loathes it. Every single election they seem to vote for the candidate most vocally promising peace. I don't think it would be fair to say that the people keep accepting it, the dynamic is clearly that the political class refuses to acknowledge the hint.
- jolmg 2mo ago
  > Have you checked the premise? Usually the waves of fake protect-the-children policies are widely decried, support is fairly thin and the politicians pass it anyway then refuse to revisit the issue ever. I think support can be quiet. I think politicians make a bet on how their constituents, including the quiet ones, will feel. Do you think that on average if you pulled a person off the street and asked them, they'd evaluate such policies as bad? I think seeing e.g. the awfulness of compromising encryption and device ownership requires at least a tech background, which most wouldn't have. Most would probably just think, "with this, there should be less reason to worry just leaving my child to their devices".
  - roenxi 2mo ago
    If that were true, wouldn't that mean that politicians are in fact acting in a WYSIWYG manner? They roll in, implement policies that people like, say "I implemented this policy because it has quiet support" and the political defence of the policy is average people like it and can't be talked out of supporting it? If your position is that the average person on the street thinks a policy is a good idea then the politicians involved aren't going to need complex signalling. They're going to say "You all like this policy! The current mob aren't going to do it >:( Vote for me, I will implement it". The sticking point is all the policies politicians implement that are unpopular with the average person on the street and that polie couldn't win an election if they were visibly standing for their actual position.

by jolmg 2mo ago

AnthonyMouse 2mo ago

I think you're talking past each other: > For example, continuing to accept anything that remotely passes as protect-the-children politics without understanding that the consequences are worse than the benefits, even for the children themselves. Passing a censorship/surveillance bill using the pretext of protecting children is the opposite of WYSIWYG. The true motive is building an apparatus to use to enforce other authoritarian policies and protecting children is the Trojan horse. If people were better informed about second order effects then that wouldn't work because they would see through the consequences when a pretext is being presented for a bad idea, and then the politicians who attempt it would be more often punished than rewarded. The tactic of lying to people would happen less often because it would be selected against when the number of people who see through you is enough to boot you out of office.

roenxi 2mo ago

> For example, continuing to accept anything that remotely passes as protect-the-children politics without understanding that the consequences are worse than the benefits, even for the children themselves. Have you checked the premise? Usually the waves of fake protect-the-children policies are widely decried, support is fairly thin and the politicians pass it anyway then refuse to revisit the issue ever. It is like the constant aggressive warfare the US is in - the US public clearly loathes it. Every single election they seem to vote for the candidate most vocally promising peace. I don't think it would be fair to say that the people keep accepting it, the dynamic is clearly that the political class refuses to acknowledge the hint.

jolmg 2mo ago
> Have you checked the premise? Usually the waves of fake protect-the-children policies are widely decried, support is fairly thin and the politicians pass it anyway then refuse to revisit the issue ever. I think support can be quiet. I think politicians make a bet on how their constituents, including the quiet ones, will feel. Do you think that on average if you pulled a person off the street and asked them, they'd evaluate such policies as bad? I think seeing e.g. the awfulness of compromising encryption and device ownership requires at least a tech background, which most wouldn't have. Most would probably just think, "with this, there should be less reason to worry just leaving my child to their devices".
- roenxi 2mo ago
  If that were true, wouldn't that mean that politicians are in fact acting in a WYSIWYG manner? They roll in, implement policies that people like, say "I implemented this policy because it has quiet support" and the political defence of the policy is average people like it and can't be talked out of supporting it? If your position is that the average person on the street thinks a policy is a good idea then the politicians involved aren't going to need complex signalling. They're going to say "You all like this policy! The current mob aren't going to do it >:( Vote for me, I will implement it". The sticking point is all the policies politicians implement that are unpopular with the average person on the street and that polie couldn't win an election if they were visibly standing for their actual position.