These slippery slope comments always seem a little naive to me because they imply there is some pure way to handle moderation. In practice, you have to be an extremist to think literally no content should be removed from Youtube with the most obvious example of something nearly everyone wants to be removed being CSAM.
Maybe you would respond by saying that is illegal and only illegal content should be taken down. According to which laws? Hate speech is illegal some places, should that be removed? What about blasphemy?
Maybe you would suggest to closely follow the local law of the user. Does that mean the site needs to allow piracy in places that is legal? And who decides whether the video actually violates the law? Does the content have to stay up until a court makes the final decision? Or what about content that is legal locally, but might be under some restrictions. Should Youtube be obligated to host hardcore porn or gory violence?
There needs to be a line somewhere for normal people to actually want to use the site. I'm not going to claim to have the perfect answer on where that line should be, but there is always going to be an ongoing debate on its exact placement.
The problem is the nature of YouTube, which is a platform with the main purpose of generating revenue based on advertisement while minimizing their own operational risk. YouTube does not care one bit about whether the content they show is informative, harmful or entertaining, they care about maximizing the amount of ad impressions while avoiding legal repercussions (only if the legal repercussions carry a significant cost, of course). This naturally leads them to err on the side of caution and implement draconian automated censorship controls. If the machine kills off a niche content creator then it means nothing in the grand scheme of things for YouTube. YouTube is a lawnmower, and you cannot reason with a lawnmower.
This is very different from past "platforms" such as niche phpBB boards on the old internet, book publishers or even editorial sections in newspapers who at least to some extent are driven by a genuine interest in the content itself even though they are, or were, also financed by advertisements.
The main problem here is that we allow commercial companies to provide generic and universal "free" content platforms which end up being the de facto gatekeepers if you have something to say. These platforms can only exist because the companies are allowed to intersperse generic user-generated content with advertisements. In my opinion, it is this advertisement-financed platform model that is the core problem here, and automated censorship is only one of the many negative consequences. Other problems are that it leads to winner-takes-it-all monopolies and that it strongly incentivizes ad companies such as Google to collect as much information about people as possible.
" ... bit about whether the content they show is informative, harmful or entertaining, they care about maximizing the amount of ad impressions while avoiding legal repercussions"
Close, but no cigar. If you have a sector with giant add spend, you grant them full control, regardless of the add impressions. People talk a lott about 'regulatory capture', but 'media capture' is just as real.
There has never ever ever been a time where you could disseminate your idea to more than about a hundred people for free.
The vast vast vast majority of the good ideas disseminated to the public in human history required someone to go pay a printing press operator to print them hundreds and hundreds of pamphlets.
This is literally how the American revolution happened. Not by requiring existing newspapers to carry opinions they didn't have (though some newspapers were literally owned by friends or people sympathetic to revolution and carried the message).
It's perfectly fine that you have to pay someone to carry your message or print pamphlets. That was always the intent of free markets and free speech together. It wasn't that anyone would be forced to carry your message (which is why the first amendment is extremely clear that you also have a right of association and can therefore not be forced or compelled to carry speech you do not want to), it was always that someone surely would be willing to make a quick buck to cater to your speech, no matter how fringe.
And it's entirely correct. Nobody at any point was unaware that Sweden had a different approach, and there was lively debate about it from day one, primarily about how "just trust people to stay home when they are sick" literally doesn't work here in the US.
It doesn't matter that Youtube took some of that discussion down, because it happened everywhere else too. Youtube is NOT your property.
Youtube cannot prevent you from talking about anything to your family.
And while I loved old forums, they were constantly fighting with being underfunded, there was infighting between the "owners", and each one worked differently, making them a bunch of disconnected little silos.
Especially compared to Youtube, there's just NO WAY IN HELL any non-exploitative company could ever finance a project of even remotely similar scope. There are already, right know, alternatives for all the big monopolists. Most people aren't using them because they don't like the trade offs.
Yes, capitalist forces are incredibly strong, which is why we need regulation to avoid negative externalities to spiral out of control. Regulation that is intended to protect consumers often end up being moats for the monopolies to cement their monopolies even further, because the regulation is too heavy and expensive to comply with for the smaller competitors.
I think that child protection laws is an example of such regulation because it will impose a huge legal and financial risk on small sites and forums which were never part of the problem.
This is why I would rather go for regulation which more or less outlaws or severely limits the viability of the problematic business model. This could also backfire of course, but I believe it will be better even though many will find it inconvenient if YouTube disappeared.
This part at least seems to be no problem. Many platforms already follow and enforce different rules in different jurisdictions.
> And who decides whether the video actually violates the law?
There are myriad laws around the world, and somehow we manage to decide what's legal and follow the law, at least most of the time. This argument is absurd on the face of it: "we can't have a law because laws are too difficult to follow and enforce".
People and corporations make their best attempt to follow the law, regulators and institutions give guidance, courts adjudicate disputes. Do you live somewhere where it works differently?
>There are myriad laws around the world, and somehow we manage to decide what's legal and follow the law, at least most of the time. This argument is absurd on the face of it: "we can't have a law because laws are too difficult to follow and enforce".
Yeah, I agree that argument is absurd. I will also note I never made that argument, so I'm not sure where you got it.
You are also missing half my comment. "Just follow the law" is not a complete answer to the questions raised. Plenty of companies will still want to remove content that doesn't violate the law in certain jurisdictions such as pirated content. Should Youtube be obligated to host that content? What if the actual right's holder threatens to stop advertising unless Google removes that content regardless of local law?
I just don't know why people pretend this is a simple issue with a single straightforward solution.
> In practice, you have to be an extremist to think literally no content should be removed from Youtube with the most obvious example of something nearly everyone wants to be removed being CSAM.
What is extremist about this opinion? (EDIT: with the exception that we indeed remove CSAM and similar things "everybody" wants removed and will (importantly!) otherwise get YouTube into deep trouble, but (basically) nothing else)
> Should Youtube be obligated to host hardcore porn or gory violence?
YouTube can decide to host, or not host, whatever it wants. The challenge is with unclear terms of use. They have a habit of taking down videos with little or no reason given, and it isn't clear what terms the video content would have violated.
Of course they can draw their own lines, but they should be clear and consistent.
As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously said in Jacobellis v. Ohio [1], "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."
I'm not sure how we can expect "clear and consistent" rulings from Youtube when even our law can be vague and inconsistent.
In my opinion that's a better argument against the usefulness of a supreme court than it is a justification for allowing leeway in censorship.
The justice is claiming that said illegal content cannot be described or identified in law, that it must be up to a judge to make that call. Such a system is insane to those being ruled by it - we can't know if we are breaking the law, but at any time a judge could decide of their own accord that we are.
We must live under a system of laws that can be comprehensible enough for a reasonable person to be able to tell when they cross the line and are likely breaking the law.
The first amendment gives them the right to literally be capricious and malevolent in their hosting choices.
Your right is that, if you don't like it, you cannot be forced to use it.
And that is true. Nebula exists because all those people were getting fucked by Google's capricious actions. Armchair historian made his own platform because Google wont pay you ad dollars if you show actual historical war footage, because god forbid you learn history.
Youtube is not a platform where anyone can say anything. There's no such thing as a "digital town square" that is owned by a private company. Even real, actual, public squares have some limits on speech nowadays.
If you want some sort of digital public square where anyone could host literally any video content, it will be funded by taxes and run by the government.
I would however hold strong support for reforms that limit the shenanigans and nonsense in Terms of Use. You shouldn't be able to put utterly unenforceable or even illegal things into a Terms of Use without penalty. Contract law has a principle of separability that means Google can put literally as many scary, illegal, unenforceable claims into it's contracts and a court would still enforce it, just without those specific parts. That gives Google a huge incentive to put even impossible things into their ToU hoping you will buy that they could enforce it, even when they know they cannot.
I also think it should not be possible to make a contract that says "we can update this at any time and change everything about it without your consent" just entirely. All contract revisions should require mutual consent.
IIUC, ToU have also just not been tested in court very well. So we should stop beating around the bush and just make a real legal framework for them.
> In practice, you have to be an extremist to think literally no content should be removed from Youtube with the most obvious example of something nearly everyone wants to be removed being CSAM.
This is not what is being said in the comments you are replying to, you are taking it to the other extreme yourself
Yes, I intentionally included an extreme example to highlight my point. However, that was not the only example included. Would you like to respond to my whole comment or just that single cherry-picked sentence?
> a line somewhere for normal people to actually want to use the site.
Youtube is a private company. They can make whatever additional moderation decisions beyond the law they want. Which are in no way based on what you want but are entirely based on what advertisers want. This control effectively answers every question you raised.
In any case, Youtube is the size where it can grapple with all these questions you just posed, but anyone else hoping to challenge their monopoly or otherwise host a small collection of videos, perhaps for a specific purpose or community, now effectively cannot.
> but there is always going to be an ongoing debate on its exact placement.
Who exactly started _this_ debate? Was there some recent outcry from the citizens that their lives have become unlivable due to the lax content restrictions on social media? Really?
>Youtube is a private company. They can make whatever additional moderation decisions beyond the law they want. Which are in no way based on what you want but are entirely based on what advertisers want. This control effectively answers every question you raised.
This is effectively the same thing. Advertisers care because the users have different moral judgments on different types of content which impacts their opinion of the companies that advertise on that content. If users were happy seeing Ford ads on porn, Ford would likely be fine advertising on Pornhub.
>In any case, Youtube is the size where it can grapple with all these questions you just posed, but anyone else hoping to challenge their monopoly or otherwise host a small collection of videos, perhaps for a specific purpose or community, now effectively cannot.
I'm not sure where this logic leads. Are you suggesting that a company needs to reach a certain size before they can be expected to moderate their content?
>Who exactly started _this_ debate? Was there some recent outcry from the citizens that their lives have become unlivable due to the lax content restrictions on social media? Really?
Isn't this question answered by your first paragraph? Users and advertisers started this debate. There was definitely public pressure for Google to take down Covid discussions that mainstream sources believed were misleading. Was there consensus? Maybe not, but there was definitely a public debate about it.
> Advertisers care because the users have different moral judgments on different types of content which <...> If users were happy seeing Ford ads on porn, Ford would likely be fine advertising on Pornhub.
Was this hypothesis ever actually even remotely tested or is it advertising agencies deciding what content is no bueno?
We don't need to hypothesize. If you pay attention to this space, you will see it play out in real time in the news. Over the last several years, there have been multiple public pressure campaigns against the advertisers on Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter.
Business accounts that list porn sites tend to get banned by the processor. There are very few payment processors willing to work with the major porn networks.
In 2022, both Visa and Mastercard banned Pornhub, leading to major shakeups as the network tried to get off the blacklist.
I don't see most advertisers being happy with spend on such a volatile target - even before the agency debates if it will affect brand image.
I submitted that users have no power and advertisers have it all. So, no, not "users and advertisers," _JUST_ advertisers.
> There was definitely public pressure for Google to take down Covid discussions
There's public pressure for Google to take down information about abortion. So what's the difference? When does "public pressure" reach a point where they act? And is the pressure truly public and organic? Or fake and astroturfed?
At least in the context of Covid, the real issue I saw was not the taking down of content, it was that a very small group of people dictated what content should be taken down.
Generally speaking in the world of "science" (any field) there will always be a level of disagreement. One scientist will come up with one theory, the other will come up with another theory, they will endlessly debate until the topic is "settled" and then the whole loop repeats if another scientist thinks that the settled topic is not actually settled. Overall I would say this is a very healthy dynamic and keeps society moving forward.
What people go so mad about during Covid was not the content being taken down, it's that you had had various scientific organizations around the world straight up break what I described in the previous paragraph. During covid you had one group make endless rushed decisions and then when other scientific groups challenged those findings, the response was not what I outlined above but rather an authoritarian "I am the science" response.
This "main group" (NIH, CDC, etc) painted all those challenges as conspiracy theories but if you actually listened to what the challenges were, they were often times quite reasonable. And the fact that they were reasonable arguments highlighted the insane hubris of the "main group" and ultimately led them to loose virtual all credibility by the time Covid wrapped up.
It is a logical fallacy if used as part of an absolute claim, but it doesn't make it always wrong when used in general statements. Some slopes are slippery, we can look at history to see this. We can't claim all slopes are slippery, this doesn't mean that no slope is slippery.
People aren't starting with axioms and then defining what absolutely will happen. People are discussing trends that appear to happen generally, but there will be exceptions. Going to college leads to a better job is a slippery slope, it doesn't always happen, but going to college is still good advice (and even better advice if one is willing to go into detail about the degree, the costs, the plans at college, and so on).
If we want to reject something as a logical fallacy, we need to consider if the other person's argument hinges on something always happening as some sort of logical proof, or if it hinges on it happening only at or above some threshold. If the first case, pointing out a slippery slope argument is a valid counter, but in the second case, it isn't and instead leads to two people talking past each other (one arguing X happens often enough to be a concern, the other arguing that X doesn't always happen, both statements that could be true).
I have no clearly defined strong feelings on that part of it yet. I am leaning towards the latter, but I honestly dislike the approach, because its a given that any factor used to determine what a public space is will be played with.
No the hell it didn't. When has policing nazi speech ever led to authoritarianism? It's quite the contrary, let the bigoted invade public space and you end up with a fascist government, like the one currently in the US, who won't give a fuck about your free speech.
Paradox of tolerance [1]:
> If a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance.
To be clear, are you claiming that the repressive censoring in China started with good intentions and then degenerated, or that free speech absolutism guarantees the perenity of your freedom of speech? Because neither claim is true.
An authoritarian government won't care about what your constitution says. We have to take measures to stop wannabe dictators from getting power, as that is the only protection of your free speech. Why respect the free speech of nazis, who would send you to a death camp the second they're able to?
> If it is not against the law, it should be up.
Well, yeah. The question is what we set the law to be. Siegheiling in public is illegal where I live, and rightfully so if you ask me. There is always a line. The US draws it a CSAM.
<< When has policing nazi speech ever led to authoritarianism?
Heh. You know what. I will let you figure it out on your own. I am ok with waiting.
<< Because neither claim is true.
I claim neither though. What I do claim, however, is that playing that game of whack-a-mole is not only a waste of time, but actually counter-productive. You may be able to pat yourself on the pack and quote paradox of intolerance at people until cows come home, but it won't change that simple reality. And I am ok with that too. Not that long ago, I was a little more annoyed with people devoting their limited lifespans unto that goal. Now I know better.
<< An authoritarian government won't care about what your constitution says.
Correct.
<< We have to take measures to stop wannabe dictators from getting power,
With you so far.
<< as that is the only protection of your free speech
Honestly, I have realized that no one is actually going to stop me from saying what I want to say.
<< Why respect the free speech of nazis
Because, friend, in the words of one supreme court justice ( and ,I might add, opinion of a fair part of the legal community ) is that it typically is not nice people or nice speech that needs protecting. It is the assholes and the 'bad' speech. But just because they are assholes and 'bad' speech, does not make the rights not apply. Do you understand why?
If not, allow me to spell it out for you, because I do feel charitable today. It is because by undermining asshole speech, you undermine your own.
<< who would send you to a death camp the second they're able to
You do realize this is not a great argument right? You are supposed to be held to a higher standard. Just because an idiot does idiot things does not give you a license to be an idiot.
<< Well, yeah. The question is what we set the law to be.
You tell me what you think is right. Clearly, it seems you don't like US version of legal speech already.
> Heh. You know what. I will let you figure it out on your own. I am ok with waiting.
Please, enlighten me. Tell me of a place that went from functional democracy, then started policing hate speech and ended up a totalitarian state because of it.
> Honestly, I have realized that no one is actually going to stop me from saying what I want to say.
Uh, good for you I guess? But what do you even mean by that? That you are magically immune to censorship? Because you aren't.
> You do realize this is not a great argument right? You are supposed to be held to a higher standard. Just because an idiot does idiot things does not give you a license to be an idiot.
Literally why should I hold nazis to a higher standard? You seem oblivious to the very real danger of far right extremism. Being charitable to nazis is how they get into power, and how you actually lose your freedom.
Those aren't just "idiots" or "assholes", they're very dangerous people, and have nothing good to contribute to society. Tolerating their behavior for too long is how you get masked ICE agents abducting American citizens in broad daylight.
> It is because by undermining asshole speech, you undermine your own.
This is simply not true. Look at how hate speech is implemented in European society. There are clear, legal boundaries. Simply being an asshole online does not get you censored. You have to go much, much further.
That is the slippery slope fallacy. Policing neonazi activity today doesn't lead to censorship of all political opponents tomorrow.
To the contrary, controlling nazi speech and other hateful ideologies helps guaranteeing the perennity of the freedom (of speech, and others) of the rest of the citizenship.
If you reject this basic idea, I fear we have nothing more to exchange.
<< If you reject this basic idea, I fear we have nothing more to exchange.
I am ok with that.
<< Tell me of a place that went from functional democracy, then started policing hate speech and ended up a totalitarian state because of it.
I am assuming a fair bit about your mental model of the world, but, ehkm, the United States of America.
<< Those aren't just "idiots" or "assholes", they're very dangerous people, and have nothing good to contribute to society.
Yes, freedom can be dangerous and scary. There are things I wish people did not do, but they do it anyway. As for the contributing, at best I can say that you are not being objective, reasonable or charitable with that statement.
<< Literally why should I hold nazis to a higher standard?
Friend, you misunderstood. Not nazis, you. Hold you to a higher standard. We are expected to be better, because we know better ( or at least we should ). This is also why I am mildly amused, when the first cry I hear from people, when they see something online is to cry for more control of what they can see/say/do. It is beyond ridiculous.
<< Simply being an asshole online does not get you censored. You have to go much, much further.
We absolutely disagree on that point. Your "much further" is already ridiculous. It is simply not factually accurate. Not in the EU. Not in Germany. Not in GB.
<< Because you aren't.
Friend, we disagree. And that is ok. Know that I love you despite your deep character flaws.
Please stop it with your insufferable patronizing. This whole conversation is a waste of time.
You keep ignoring the basic material fact that respecting fascists' free speech is a sure path to losing it for everyone, as is the case in the US, and in many places before it.
You suggest nothing except "holding oneself to a higher standard" (whatever could that mean?). Can this help you face ICE agents when they abduct you in the streets and ship you to a foreign black site?
> I am assuming a fair bit about your mental model of the world, but, ehkm, the United States of America.
Ok, you're completely deluded. Do you seriously think hate speech policing was what led to Trump's government?? Fascists have been able to say whatever they want for ages now in this country.
<< Do you seriously think hate speech policing was what led to Trump's government??
Interesting. I suppose I was not wrong with my assumptions. More to the point, what do you think led to Trump's government?
<< Fascists have been able to say whatever they want for ages now in this country.
You have some sort of a point which broadly happens to coincide with one the previous one's I have made. But I won't offer a rebuttal before you answer the question in the first paragraph.
<< Can this help you face ICE agents when they abduct you in the streets and ship you to a foreign black site?
You seem frazzled. My personal recommendation is to take a step back and reconsider your argument. I will offer a minor response here so you do not feel ignored. None of this should be a surprise to anyone, who has been paying attention. I will add that it does not escape me that current set of circumstances would not be quite so easily generated were it not for the oh so helpful hands of those, who cheerfully signed up for being able to silence dissent. Great job there.
<< You suggest nothing except "holding oneself to a higher standard" (whatever could that mean?)
I hate to repeat myself for fear of people accusing me of being formulaic, but what do you think it means?
<< You keep ignoring the basic material fact that respecting fascists' free speech is a sure path to losing it for everyone, as is the case in the US, and in many places before it.
Hmm? I deal with people as they are; warts and all. You seem to want to live in alternate reality pretending they ( and their opinions ) don't exist and have no bearing on you. I honestly do not think I am the one ignoring things. All I can say is, good luck.
<< Please stop it with your insufferable patronizing.
What would you like me to do instead?
<< This whole conversation is a waste of time.
I honestly disagree. I mean, maybe it was for you, but I did derive something useful from it.
> Interesting. I suppose I was not wrong with my assumptions. More to the point, what do you think led to Trump's government?
What leads to fascism? Discontent stemming from decades of neoliberalist policies, that left many impoverished and without social nets to catch them. Neoliberalism doesn't sell anymore, so the choice is now between social-democracy and far right populism. Guess which one the capital class preferred and championed? Same story as always.
What do you think led to Trump's government? Cancel culture? Don't be ridiculous.
> I will add that it does not escape me that current set of circumstances would not be quite so easily generated were it not for the oh so helpful hands of those, who cheerfully signed up for being able to silence dissent. Great job there.
I feel like you are victim blaming here. Do you mean to say that ICE's behavior is a consequence of a will to hold people accountable hate speech?
ICE makes use of new tools that were created under the current administration. They make no use of prior laws that may have been diverted from their original purposes.
> I hate to repeat myself for fear of people accusing me of being formulaic, but what do you think it means?
I think you mean something like "they go low, we go high", which is a terrible idea in my experience.
It is an interesting question and we may be actually getting to a more interesting piece of this conversation ( I was mildly concerned we will not be able to get there ). I think opportunity met an opportunist, but that may be tad too glib. Allow me to elaborate as it partially builds on what you wrote.
Way back when I remember going on a mini vacation driving through some states, which included Ohio, West Virginia and few others. I think that was before Trump was elected the first time, but just after Vance started to promote his memoir on just about every show ( not a bad read, I might add ). I had good time overall despite seeing some of the things Vance talked about on that road trip. Probably the saddest thing I saw was a sign saying 'save us Trump'. Chappelle picked up on that too in one of his bits, but I digress.
Why do I mention it? After first Trump win, all the networks tried to do attempt some soul searching with added bonus of melodramatic hand wringing ( whether it was sincere or theater, I leave up to you to interpret ) on how could this have happened, and, amusingly, Vance actually said the why with a simple 'can you hear us now?'. That was obviously in ancient times when CNN thought Vance was a good guy and therefore could be allowed to make such brazen statements.
My subtle point is that folks were already desperate then. The discontent is not discontent anymore. It likely borders on barely contained anger since, to your point, policies did not change much despite, seemingly, party colors changing at the White House.
<< Cancel culture? Don't be ridiculous.
Having wrote all of the above, I can give you that 'cancel culture' as you chose to frame it was not a sole reason for that anger, but I think you severely underestimate the very human need for a safety valve. Hell, systems' need for a safety valve. Believe it or not, soviet communists understood that fairly well. It is possible it was just one more thing that pushed some over the edge.
<< I feel like you are victim blaming here.
I will be mildly blunt. I don't really care how you feel. For every action, there is a reaction. In that sense, human interactions are practically newtonian. I get that you may be sad that I told you your very own actions and stances may be the culprit for the issues you rail against now, but the sooner you recognize this, the sooner you can make reasonable adjustments. Or not.
<< ICE makes use of new tools that were created under the current administration. They make no use of prior laws that may have been diverted from their original purposes.
I have three questions for you. And? So? What? Every single power center is pushing in their own direction for their own benefit using every tool at their disposal. None of this is new. Narrow facts may be different, but the basic principle remains the same. And you focus on what? Theater.
<< I think you mean something like "they go low, we go high", which is a terrible idea in my experience.
You might not be wrong here. However, I would like you to entertain the alternative, because I am not sure you did that in any kind of serious way. "They go low, we go high" at its core is adherence to the existing standard, which is basically what the society is built around. If you tell me that standard is degrading. Maybe the degradation does not quite make it null and void, but it further erodes existing standards eventually leading to societal collapse and a vacuum and I hope that you do understand that humans are not exactly great in a vacuum.
If you see me arguing for status quo, this is exactly the reason.
If I understand you well, you seem to believe that Trump's government is a reaction to the democrats going too... what? Too woke? Too progressive?
IMO, this is an extremely shallow understanding of politics and ignores the material forces that led to someone like Trump getting into power.
You can't look at the US in a vacuum. What is happening here has happened dozens of times elsewhere. Was Orban elected because the opposition was too woke? Was Mussolini elected because the opposition was too progressive? Of course not.
Trump voters have a really warped perception of the democrats, thanks to decades of well-funded propaganda. They believe the neoliberal party that holds mildy rainbow-capitalist social views is actually a "degenerate trans gang" out to trans their kids or whatever.
In truth, the democrats are socially very mild compared to actually progressive parties around the world. Blaming their mild social policies instead of the massive campaigns of disinformation that made them pass for extremists is ludicrous.
Here: I'll posit that if the democrats actually fixed the country through more corporate taxes, socialized universal healthcare, free university and such, we'd have heard none of Trump. Without them ever needing to abandon their social policies.
But they did not, as they too rely on corporate donors and are too afraid to lose their support by addressing the actual issues this country faces: growing inequalities, etc.
> After first Trump win, all the networks tried to do attempt some soul searching with added bonus of melodramatic hand wringing ( whether it was sincere or theater, I leave up to you to interpret ) on how could this have happened
Yes, liberal media is condemned to be forever clueless, as they can't reason about the prevalence of money in US politics, and couldn't foresee the very obvious consequences of the wealthy channeling hundreds of billions of dollars toward promoting right-wing populism.
> You might not be wrong here. However, I would like you to entertain the alternative, because I am not sure you did that in any kind of serious way. "They go low, we go high" at its core is adherence to the existing standard, which is basically what the society is built around. If you tell me that standard is degrading. Maybe the degradation does not quite make it null and void, but it further erodes existing standards eventually leading to societal collapse and a vacuum and I hope that you do understand that humans are not exactly great in a vacuum.
For better or worse, I believe the only solution is for an hypothetical economically progressive party to "play dirty", that is to say employ a form of "left-wing populism".
Bernie has been kind of successful in his "oligarchy tour", redirecting the anger of Americans from minorites and unto the billionaires, which largely contribute to this country's actual issues for one.
There is no fixing this mess through an appeal to "centrism" or "status quo".
<< There is no fixing this mess through an appeal to "centrism" or "status quo".
I personally do not think it can be fixed in its current form, which is primarily why I argue to maintain what we do have.
<< Bernie has been kind of successful in his "oligarchy tour", redirecting the anger of Americans from minorites and unto the billionaires, which largely contribute to this country's actual issues for one.
I give him credit. He made those policies 'cool' among young people. Were it not for his age, he would have been a real threat to the existing power centers.
<< For better or worse, I believe the only solution is for an hypothetical economically progressive party to "play dirty", that is to say employ a form of "left-wing populism".
Eh, best I can say is that whatever they are doing now is definitely not working well. We might be in disagreement about the way, but I would not mind being on the 'winning side' for once.
<< In truth, the democrats are socially very mild compared to actually progressive parties around the world. Blaming their mild social policies instead of the massive campaigns of disinformation that made them pass for extremists is ludicrous. Here: I'll posit that if the democrats actually fixed the country through more corporate taxes, socialized universal healthcare, free university and such, we'd have heard none of Trump. Without them ever needing to abandon their social policies.
I do not think you are wrong about any of this, but it is impossible to say for sure one way or another.
<< They believe the neoliberal party that holds mildy rainbow-capitalist social views is actually a "degenerate trans gang" out to trans their kids or whatever.
The interesting part here is that the democrat party was partly forced to consider changing their stances a little as a result of that propaganda. The internal party conversation still seems to be ongoing, but the impact has been clear ( calls to 'not focus' on minorities that are too small to matter and too, whats a good word, visible to the general population ).
<< IMO, this is an extremely shallow understanding of politics and ignores the material forces that led to someone like Trump getting into power.
I do not claim to be some political whiz, but I am still somewhat attuned to the local 'vibe'. As always, it is possible that I simply see what I want to see and just form satisfying explanation afterwards, but I did see some of the things coming. So even if it is shallow, it appears to work as a heuristic more often than not. I admit that sometimes I wish it did not.
That said, if you can offer a counter explanation of the forces at play, I am all ears. Believe it or not, I am actually listening now.
<< If I understand you well, you seem to believe that Trump's government is a reaction to the democrats going too... what? Too woke? Too progressive?
Hmm, close. I think we can start with that. Democrats were in a weird spot, because, as you noted, they were putting a facade of a working man's party, while getting fairly cozy with interests that do not exactly align with those. From that perspective alone, internal conflicts of interests were inevitable. That helped build some of the discontent you mentioned ( and help build narrative about uniparty and bolster both sides are the same conversations ).
That said, to your point about going too woke, it did not help with people already being in a rather foul mood over being on the wrong end of the stick of economic policies and, as as results, were looking for something to focus that anger on. And the right was able to find at least two very viable scapegoats, who were both explicitly supported by the democratic party ( immigrants and trans ).
So in a sense, dems went too far on dumb stuff, while reps were playing for keeps.
I don't believe there's anything the democrats could have been that wouldn't have been twisted by the massive propaganda apparatus in service of the GOP. If they abandoned their ever ill-defined "wokeness", Fox News would have found something else to scapegoat all the ills of America on.
There are legitimate critics of the democratic party, like their abandon of class matters, or how hollow their social militantism feels because of it. None of those are the reasons the dems are bad mouthed in conservative media.
Democrats can't win by appealing to an ever-elusive and shifting "center". They will forever be the party of child-eating degenerates to the people that voted for Trump, no matter how many causes they drop.
> That said, if you can offer a counter explanation of the forces at play, I am all ears. Believe it or not, I am actually listening now.
I didn't invent most of my ideas on fascism. I look into history books and attempt to apply the lessons of the past on our current situation. Here's a summary of what I think I have learned:
While fascism is an internally inconsistent ideology, it does exhibit consistent aspects. One of them is support from the capitalist class. For example, this connects Mussolini, Hitler, Putin, Trump...
Once the current liberal-democratic model starts malfunctioning because of its internal contradictions* (and it always does), the mask slips and the wealthy start supporting far right populism.
This is the only way for them to prevent the rise of socialism (by redirecting the middle class' anger toward minorities) while keeping on deregulating and privatizing the economy.
Evidently, this doesn't fix anything and only makes things worse, which is part of why fascism always fails in the end, although that can take a relatively long time.
I don't believe there's anything to be done but wait, once the cogs of the terrible machine are set in motion. Wether we're here yet, I do not claim to know.
* Imbalance of power between classes. Capital always gets his ways, and so the material conditions of the rest of the population are left to slowly degrade.
---
Last time, America got lucky in the person of FDR (and what he represented). Through the New Deal, he was able to rekindle the flailing economy by essentially pumping money to the working class, curbing discontent. At least for a time. The wealthy of the time absolutely didn't like that, and attempts on his life were made.
He didn't actually fix the underlying issues though, and 80 years later, we're back to square one.
