3 ms·

I think everyone's kinda missing the point here. You don't trust powerful people, plain and simple. Not because they're any worse than the average person, but

by jval 13y ago

I think everyone's kinda missing the point here. You don't trust powerful people, plain and simple. Not because they're any worse than the average person, but because you can't do anything to stop them when they do something wrong. There's a reason why we have three arms of government.

qq66 13y ago
The media will always be controlled by powerful people. If a media outlet has a self-sustaining profitable business model, it will bestow power upon its owners and managers. If it loses money, it will be taken under the wing of an otherwise wealthy and powerful individual.
- alfiejohn_ 13y ago
  > If a media outlet has a self-sustaining profitable business model Take a look at who owns The Guardian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust In 1992, the Trust identified its central objective as being the following: - To secure the financial and editorial independence of The Guardian in perpetuity: as a quality national newspaper without party affiliation; remaining faithful to liberal tradition; as a profit-seeking enterprise managed in an efficient and cost-effective manner. The Trust sees its main functions as being the following: - To secure the Trust's own continuity by renewing its membership and by dealing with threats to its existence; - To monitor the organisation, financial management and overall strategy of the Group, holding the board accountable for its performance; - To appoint and 'in extreme circumstances' to dismiss the editors of The Guardian and The Observer, - To act as a 'court of appeal' in the event of any dispute between the editorial and managerial sides of the operation.
  - lemming 13y ago
    This is why I religiously read and pay for the Guardian. They still run massive losses but I do what I can - they're the best news source I've found by far.
oleganza 13y ago
> There's a reason why we have three arms of government. That's a reason why people are made to believe there are three arms of government. In reality, government is just a bunch of people with a lot of self-interest fighting for power here and there between each other. But all of them are interested in keeping this myth going that because there are > 1 power-hungry guys it somehow represents "checks and balances" for a worried general public. It's a joke. Government is a violent institution to extract resources from unarmed people under a promise of "fairness" and "interests of the nation". Being a "democracy" its nature does not change. Only extreme risks like "dictator kills 100000 people at once" are reduced, but the nature is the same: the will of people to command violence (politicians) and the will of bribed others to execute it (cops and army). Just check the news about anything that people don't like about the government. E.g. NSA scandal. What do the branches do? There's a "secret court", congress does not care to fight against NSA and every government official still extracts your taxes for the same NSA, judges and congressmen.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
Don't use Amazon, don't read the Washington Post. This doesn't seem that complex to me.
- Osmium 13y ago
  Tragedy of the commons – I know my individual purchases are a drop in the ocean to Amazon, and hence any boycott I make would be worthless, so why should I pass up some good deals even if (hypothetically speaking) I did disapprove of the company?
falk 13y ago
It seems like a lot of people in the tech industry are smitten with the the corporate leadership of popular companies like Amazon, Google, Apple, Facebook, etc. These people may have created great products and companies but people need to realize that you're not their friends. They have mostly have different interests than you. I noticed this a lot when the PRISM scandal happened. I saw people actively defending these companies saying that their leaders would never allow such a thing to occur. I think a lot of this has happened because of clever marketing. Advertisements like "Dear Sophie" by Google [1] or "Music Every Day" by Apple are designed to be touching and pull on your heartstrings. You owe these companies nothing. They don't need you to defend their actions. Your interests aren't always aligned. I will be very surprised if writers at the Washington Post are now allowed to write about the hardships of being an employee at an Amazon Fulfillment center. That type of story just doesn't align with Bezos' interests. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4vkVHijdQk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4vkVHijdQk [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDUKt_XgfJ4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDUKt_XgfJ4

by jval 13y ago

qq66 13y ago

The media will always be controlled by powerful people. If a media outlet has a self-sustaining profitable business model, it will bestow power upon its owners and managers. If it loses money, it will be taken under the wing of an otherwise wealthy and powerful individual.

alfiejohn_ 13y ago
> If a media outlet has a self-sustaining profitable business model Take a look at who owns The Guardian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust In 1992, the Trust identified its central objective as being the following: - To secure the financial and editorial independence of The Guardian in perpetuity: as a quality national newspaper without party affiliation; remaining faithful to liberal tradition; as a profit-seeking enterprise managed in an efficient and cost-effective manner. The Trust sees its main functions as being the following: - To secure the Trust's own continuity by renewing its membership and by dealing with threats to its existence; - To monitor the organisation, financial management and overall strategy of the Group, holding the board accountable for its performance; - To appoint and 'in extreme circumstances' to dismiss the editors of The Guardian and The Observer, - To act as a 'court of appeal' in the event of any dispute between the editorial and managerial sides of the operation.
- lemming 13y ago
  This is why I religiously read and pay for the Guardian. They still run massive losses but I do what I can - they're the best news source I've found by far.

oleganza 13y ago

> There's a reason why we have three arms of government. That's a reason why people are made to believe there are three arms of government. In reality, government is just a bunch of people with a lot of self-interest fighting for power here and there between each other. But all of them are interested in keeping this myth going that because there are > 1 power-hungry guys it somehow represents "checks and balances" for a worried general public. It's a joke. Government is a violent institution to extract resources from unarmed people under a promise of "fairness" and "interests of the nation". Being a "democracy" its nature does not change. Only extreme risks like "dictator kills 100000 people at once" are reduced, but the nature is the same: the will of people to command violence (politicians) and the will of bribed others to execute it (cops and army). Just check the news about anything that people don't like about the government. E.g. NSA scandal. What do the branches do? There's a "secret court", congress does not care to fight against NSA and every government official still extracts your taxes for the same NSA, judges and congressmen.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

Don't use Amazon, don't read the Washington Post. This doesn't seem that complex to me.

Osmium 13y ago
Tragedy of the commons – I know my individual purchases are a drop in the ocean to Amazon, and hence any boycott I make would be worthless, so why should I pass up some good deals even if (hypothetically speaking) I did disapprove of the company?

falk 13y ago

It seems like a lot of people in the tech industry are smitten with the the corporate leadership of popular companies like Amazon, Google, Apple, Facebook, etc. These people may have created great products and companies but people need to realize that you're not their friends. They have mostly have different interests than you. I noticed this a lot when the PRISM scandal happened. I saw people actively defending these companies saying that their leaders would never allow such a thing to occur. I think a lot of this has happened because of clever marketing. Advertisements like "Dear Sophie" by Google [1] or "Music Every Day" by Apple are designed to be touching and pull on your heartstrings. You owe these companies nothing. They don't need you to defend their actions. Your interests aren't always aligned. I will be very surprised if writers at the Washington Post are now allowed to write about the hardships of being an employee at an Amazon Fulfillment center. That type of story just doesn't align with Bezos' interests. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4vkVHijdQk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4vkVHijdQk [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDUKt_XgfJ4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDUKt_XgfJ4