Have been thinking of something similar lately: A fictitious newspaper with headlines that illustrate the propaganda aspect of our news orgs. Headlines like:
- Foreign leader lacks dignity
- US institutions solid
- Life in the 3rd world is horrible
- Life in the 3rd world is meaningless/scary
- Something some politician said was important.
- Politician's legacy is important
- Foreign institutions/economy shaky
- Foreign unemployment soars
- Life in foreign city dangerous
- Election in foreign country rigged
- Arcane details about silly political spat matter
- US institutions beyond reproach
- Firms are not beyond reproach
- Sports matter
- Storm with name nears
- Three cheers for successful US company
- You know buzzwords so you are informed about science
- You know buzzwords so you are informed about technology
As they say about programming, the best way to complain about software is to write software. If you don't like what the media is reporting then start your own news organization of whatever kind, including satire. To complete the exercise, put years of your life into building circulation, attracting talented writers, dealing with technology costs and issues, creating and maintaining relationships and generally doing the things necessary to scale a business. Then after all of that investment, make the decision between "listening to your customers and giving them what they want" and "sticking it to the man".
The majority of media organizations don't select stories on the basis of what will be the most effective form of propaganda, but based on what they think people want to read about and discuss. Any business that has the mindset of telling it's customers what they want instead of listening to them and responding to their needs is going to have a rough go of it, including media businesses. You may not like the results, but any fault that you perceive lies more with your fellow citizens than it does with the organizations that deliver news to them.
>As they say about programming, the best way to complain about software is to write software. If you don't like what the media is reporting then start your own news organization of whatever kind, including satire. To complete the exercise, put years of your life into building circulation, attracting talented writers, dealing with technology costs and issues, creating and maintaining relationships and generally doing the things necessary to scale a business. Then after all of that investment, make the decision between "listening to your customers and giving them what they want" and "sticking it to the man".
This seems to me like a very American conception of the issue (culturally I mean).
The "continental" idea is that the Press (news) is not supposed to be a business first and foremost, but a kind of service to the republic first, and a business second.
The business aspect (ads, etc) is tolerated in the degree that the Press is independent, informative, helps decocracy and transparency, etc.
If a news outlet owner can't make money off of it, he can always not do it. Doing it badly, untruthfully, link-baity etc, is not something that's really OK (e.g. because "they have to make money" -- pimps have to make money too, that's no excuse), but something that is an example of a sick Press.
>The majority of media organizations don't select stories on the basis of what will be the most effective form of propaganda, but based on what they think people want to read about and discuss.
That's also not 100% accurate. Will a lot of stores are run like that, other aspects (like their stance in foreign politic issues, bills etc) are more often than not based on the interests of the owner or sponsors of the outlet, and in lots of cases downright propaganda (from the crude Operation Mockinbird ways onwards to today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird ).
> The "continental" idea is that the Press (news) is not supposed to be a business first and foremost, but a kind of service to the republic first, and a business second.
This is dangerous because it is a lie. If the newspaper can't sell itself as a business, it can't buy ink and paper, and it shuts its doors. The business aspect is inescapable unless it's owned and run by the government, which is even more dangerous to press freedom. If you deny the business aspect, you can't analyze it, and you can't see if it biases coverage.
> If a news outlet owner can't make money off of it, he can always not do it. Doing it badly, untruthfully, link-baity etc, is not something that's really OK (e.g. because "they have to make money" -- pimps have to make money too, that's no excuse), but something that is an example of a sick Press.
Except they do have to make money. If you think of that as a sickness, all Press is sick.
>> The "continental" idea is that the Press (news) is not supposed to be a business first and foremost, but a kind of service to the republic first, and a business second.
> This is dangerous because it is a lie. If the newspaper can't sell itself as a business, it can't buy ink and paper, and it shuts its doors. The business aspect is inescapable unless it's owned and run by the government, which is even more dangerous to press freedom. If you deny the business aspect, you can't analyze it, and you can't see if it biases coverage.
But you surely have to face the side that goes in the vain of simplistic pop music: it exists because people consume it; enforcing the production of more "refined" content won't make people switch to it. The solution of course is improving education (in a broad sense including cultural and political awareness).
On the other hand, while simply producing quality content can't change the picture, it sure doesn't hurt either. Take the BBC, National public radio, or a state sponsored network in Brazil called TV Cultura (culture TV), which has great content if not the most popular.
>But you surely have to face the side that goes in the vain of simplistic pop music: it exists because people consume it; enforcing the production of more "refined" content won't make people switch to it.
By itself no. But giving more refined content the same level of promotion as simplistic pop will.
In the sixties teenagers were OK to listen to something as evolved as the Beatles, and the industry went along. Regularly the top-100 was filled with stuff that was not cookie cutter (with the ocassional clunker like the Monkeys and such, but even "fabricated" stuff was of higher quality, like Motown, and even ventured into experimentation).
Now we're back to late-fifties style manufactured idols, because they can be produced, marketed to death, sell merchandise change to fit fashions, and tossed aside when done, with more ease, which increases the profit margins over promoting actual musicians who just care for the craft.
(And I'm not saying that because I'm anti-electronic music or anything. I like from Tom Waits and Lou Reed to Autechre and Aphex Twin, with all kinds of electropop thrown in, from Yello to Plastikman. This rant is about manufactered simplistic BS vs stuff with artistic pretentions -- or even manufactured "joy" vs actual fun of life).
It is interesting that the market demands this kind of news. I guess it's not surprising that since so much policy is predicated on American Exceptionalism, that the daily paper need only retell that story again and again so that we can all feel comfortable that we have the first-world lives that we deserve.
As long as others have it worse, we are doing well. I guess it's similar to the public hunger for embarrassing stories about celebrities, the stuff on Jerry Springer, etc. Most people don't realize that those stories they are reading in the NYT about womens' rights in the 3rd world are the same kind of indulgence.
I'm not cynical. It only seems cynical if you believe those things to be true.
We do not have much official government propaganda in the US simply b/c we don't need it -- the private firms deliver a mix of stories designed to make the reader feel like life is pretty good while feeling informed, justified ire about this and that.
Here are the headlines on washingtonpost.com[0].
They sure do look like they're making blindly xenophobic, nationalistic claims to bolster my faith in the government /s :
Obama scraps bid to raise taxes on ‘529’ plans
How one family went from no debt
to owing more than $1 million
*Why the snow forecast for New York City was so bad, and what should be done
"US institution beyond reproach" You don't read many newspaper articles, do you? Ever hear of this thing called 'Watergate'?
No it isn't, it's been around a lot longer than that. I love the Illumintus books, but they're a rehash of existing concepts. I suggest you check out Guy Debord's Society of the spectacle; as well as the book, there's a film which is available in full on Youtube and narrated by Debord himself. Of course such ideas had been floating around in philosophy for longer than that, but Debord's work was very current when the first Illuminatus trilogy was written around 1975.
I loved They Live before the pervert's guide to ideology, but you're right that this post is probably derivative of the latter. It's just a daily blog post that we're doing as part of Winter Break Of Code, and wasn't really "meant" for the front page of HN, so I'm surprised to see it in a place like this.
For what it's worth, I wasn't trying to write an analysis of They Live, and was just using it as a tongue-in-cheek back drop for a different question.
One of the great advantages of having supreme mastery of any field is - you gain the ability to not partake in that field of your own volition. Others still in the apprenticeship stages don't have that luxury, because they need to learn - they need to absorb as much information as possible, and they can't afford to simply opt out of learning more.
In terms of a specific symbol that identifies hacker/privacycare types there is things like the glider symbol. Also, loose and informal groups like Telecomix, and Anonymous are usually a sign someone has opted out of the matrix and knows the game is rigged.
Cory Doctory makes the analogy that general purpose computers are going to get inadvertently infected/compromised no matter how hard you try. Once a computer is connected to the public Internet - it is a sitting duck, and exposed. We can lock it down, but it is still speaking to the packet switched net, which, by design - is going to be toxic.
I don't know how to protect my devices. A lot of the problems are too systemic, and need massive changes in policy and law to get systems trusted again.
Its a economic war. Sitting on the switch and sniffing cleartext is easy and cheap. Compromising every enduser point and the aggregating all the data is much, much harder. More risk of detection, less reliablity and it needs constant uptake because of software and hardware updates.
The NSA is not able to do this at the moment and they do everything they can to avoid having to do it thatway. Keep with the words of Snowden "Secure crypto properly developed", if we can make that happen we can increase worrying about end user devices.
I love whispersystems and use there products. This post gives a real inside into the mind of of many hackers, specially in the last couple of years. You spend so much time with Alice and Bob and because its intresting you think about it even when talking to normal people and this might be a harmful way to think when actually trying to build a relationship.
Moxie has probebly felt this more then most, and I want to take this change to thank him and the rest of the people working on these systems.
I hope that we do meet on that beach and that classical liberals are equally welcome even if we do support global capitalism :)
"They Live" is a fun movie, and like Marxism, it certainly taps inot the vague, nearly universal "everything is wrong" vibe that affects nearly everyone but especially young adults. Other examples: The Matrix. Philip Dick and Stanislaw Lem (perhaps the most underrated SF author ever) made careers out of this emotion. For a modern incarnation on Netflix, check out Black Mirror, particular "15 Million Merits"[1]. Powerful stuff.
When I step back and look at the world, for all of our terrible mistakes, we (the western capitalist states) really are the good guys, because personally and politically, overwhelmingly, we really do despise the despots, and the racists, and the needless violence and barbarism that rises to power in too many places in the world. More than once we've spilled blood and spent money not to benefit ourselves, but to stop something evil from happening to others. And no, this doesn't excuse the fact that we've spilled even more blood for our own selfish ends, be they resources or the assertion of misguided idealism.
Consumerism, unlike unjust war, is a trickier beast to slay. Why? Because it's good in one important way! Consumption really does drive an economy, which is good for people's bellies, and well-fed people are pretty happy (watch Triumph of the Will[2] and notice how often Riefenstahl shows food and people eating). The urge to consume, and all the messaging that goes into it, are manipulative, but it manipulates us into wealth. (Heaven help us all when even the elite can't ignore the externalities of this approach, particularly WRT climate!) We will soon see if virtual goods can thread this needle.
>Once we’ve put on the glasses, what do we do? Where are the aliens, and how do we start killing them?
As anti-authoritarian as I am, I still can't get behind killing anyone. Maybe it's naive, but I really believe in non-violent (not passive) resistance. Ghandi, MLK, Aung Yung Suu Kyi - they show us the remarkable power of patience, love, and unyielding persistence.
> When I step back and look at the world, for all of our terrible mistakes, we (the western capitalist states) really are the good guys, because personally and politically, overwhelmingly, we really do despise the despots, and the racists, and the needless violence and barbarism that rises to power in too many places in the world.
The history of western capitalist states has largely been one of rampant colonialism. [1] Post-WW2, the U.S. has overthrown countless governments, often democratic ones, to install regimes that would carry out U.S. policy, and serve western national and corporate interests. [2]
> As anti-authoritarian as I am, I still can't get behind killing anyone.
Except for the covert coups and the mass genocides. Those are nothing to worry about and can be written off as "misguided idealism", since we "really are the good guys".
I am not a cold war historian. Let's take something more recent, like the 2003 invasion of Iraq. There was a great deal of killing in that war, and all of it under false pretenses in the service of the neocon idea that overthrowing Saddam would have a domino effect in the region, and create a democratic, liberal middle east free of it's oppressive dictatorships.
It was wrong, it was stupid; but the goal was right. The various Arab Springs proved that. Governments in the middle-east are terrible and oppressive. And sure, these sick states exist because of historical western imperialism and the aftermath of WWI, and are more recently maintained by oil revenue. Fine. The fact remains that democracy is better and ideally there would be democracy (and yes, capitalism) in the middle east.
Maybe I'm totally wrong. But my personal experience here was good, and it doesn't seem evil to give other people the same benefits I got. My parents were poor high school graduates who created a small business that put me through college and made them wealthy. Western capitalism gave them that opportunity. It also gave them the ability to worship how they wanted, and encouraged them to tolerate, and appreciate, people of other races, creeds and religions. If there's a nation or a system of government that gives those benefits without any of the drawbacks, then I'm all ears, programmarchy! The incompetent and frankly evil ways in which we've tried to protect and spread that system are shameful, but it doesn't undermine the value of the system.
(This assumes, of course, that our goal is to spread our way of life throughout the world, and not just consolidate control of natural resources for the Fatherland's inordinate consumption, a la Rome).
I'm not sure anyone tried a really Marxist society on any scale. I think the hippie communes were getting there. Any communist/marxist country (basically any country with the word "Democratic" in its name) was basically state capitalist. The state (a small number of elites) owned the means of production with the people as inefficient, unmotivated labor.
Many people tried Marsism on a scale, but non of them managed to scala so it changed. By this very effect marxist are able to say 'marxism was not realy tried at scala'.
> Any communist/marxist country (basically any country with the word "Democratic" in its name)
Democratic is much older then marxism. Dont spread lies.
> was basically state capitalist
Revolutionarys with the EXPRES goal of marism took power and then transform them self into dictatorships. These dictatorships are then named 'state capitalist' to avoid self reflection on the marxist parts. How can a system that was created by stealing and centralising everybodys private property be capitalist, thats the exact opposite.
Just because the state is dominated by a elite and this elite has simular powers over property (right to profit, controll and transact) it is not in any way capitalist.
> people as inefficient, unmotivated labor.
The labor was unmotivated and inefficient because these countrys did a horrible job at building a system that provided for the very people they clamed to protoct and thus these people were very much in the mood for another change. As response to this these marxist revolutionary quickly turn into 'state capitalist'. The Communist policys of 1919-1921 where so terrible that lenin, trosky and bukharin agree that they had to come up with something diffrent as fast as possible, whitch lead Bukahrin to rewritte the hole system in the next 2 month and the NEP was born. This NEP was very much a return to pre 1917 (and people in ruissa had jokes about this) and it was a system that was completly unable to reach the partys goal (rapid industrialisation) anytime soon.
So this is just on example, Bukahrin had for years thought about how he would like a economic system to work, in a couple of month in 1921 he rewrote his ideals to something that was in many ways a return to zarist economics. Ideal fall out of the window when you need to stay in power and that is exactly why 'real marixm tm' has never been tried in the view of marxists.
>> Any communist/marxist country (basically any country with the word "Democratic" in its name)
> Democratic is much older then marxism. Dont spread lies.
That isn't what the quote you responded to was saying. It means "If the country has the exact string 'Democratic' in its name, it was/is communist/Marxist". For example, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
> These dictatorships are then named 'state capitalist' to avoid self reflection on the marxist parts.
This is dishonest, because it means Marxism can never fail: If it fails, it's "state capitalist" (a nonsense category), and was never Marxist to begin with! It's just a lie to keep Marxism from ever looking bad.
Practically speaking, whenever communism or some flavor of it was tried in scale they ended up running a large monopolar corporation, which they called "the state". It was state capitalism because the state owned all the capital.
Capitalism, is short for "private capital" a strange form of communism where anyone can own the means of production if they figure out how to.
The United States, for all its flaws, is really the only country where ANYBODY, and I mean ANYBODY, with enough gumption can become a major owner of capital.
they live is one of the best john carpenter films, and that includes the epic 10-minute on-concrete wrestling match before keith david will don the glasses.
being extremely entertained to see a blog entry about they live aside, making privacy simple is super hard. similarly, making people care about privacy is super hard. killing the aliens is even harder.
ubiquitous surveillance has a pretty obvious response in the long run: ubiquitous encryption.
I've not seen the movie (yet) but reading the description on the blog was enlightening for me.
I don't fit into Western Society at all - I couldn't care less for consumerism, sports, mass media, smartphones, etc. etc. and I've always thought it's because I can see the truth behind stuff, where other people just see the glitter on the surface covering up the ugly truth.
Now I know I've just been wearing a pair of these sunglasses my whole life.
Most of us think that we now live in totally atheist, post-ideological times, and cynically view the big 20th century movements like communism and fascism as totally failed and outdated. But it's exactly when we think we exist outside ideology that we are actually in it. It's inherent in the way that we construct our reality and stage our desires. And this is also reflected in cinema. In a consumerist capitalist society, you think you are free by being able to enjoy life and buy things like a Starbucks frappuccino, when actually, you are following an obscene and deep command to ”ENJOY.”
You sure are a special snowflake. Thank you for sharing your insights with the rest of the world. Do you have a newsletter? I would like to subscribe to it! Your fresh, humble insights are a beacon to us all, who have to contend with the dumb sheeple on a daily basis.
The thing about western society is that its actually still mostly free. I dont care for most of those things either (exept the smartphone) but I can easly build my own bubble.
You are not forced to spend much time in mass culture, there is no great conspiricy, people are just diffrent then you but you have the freedom to find your own frinds and community that you can hang out with.
There are hunders and tousends of subcommunity outthere that most people have not even heard of. I am constantly suprised about all the hobbies that exist even in a short distance from my house. There is a huge groupe of people who are totally into doing competition "who has the best looking rabbit". This is from perspective totally alien but I happen to stumble on a tournament once where literally tousends of people and even more rabbits and I could just not belive how many people that were there.
So stop lamenting the fact that you live in a consumer society and start investing your money into the stuff you actually like, and invest your time into people and hobbies that you actually like instead of seeing conspirices behind everything.
Also it want kill you to know the 5 top pop songs and watch a football game with your familly once in a while.
I found this passage quite confusing as TextSecure is wholly reliant on proprietary Google services. Is there any chance that will be resolved soon, Moxie?
- Foreign leader lacks dignity
- US institutions solid
- Life in the 3rd world is horrible
- Life in the 3rd world is meaningless/scary
- Something some politician said was important.
- Politician's legacy is important
- Foreign institutions/economy shaky
- Foreign unemployment soars
- Life in foreign city dangerous
- Election in foreign country rigged
- Arcane details about silly political spat matter
- US institutions beyond reproach
- Firms are not beyond reproach
- Sports matter
- Storm with name nears
- Three cheers for successful US company
- You know buzzwords so you are informed about science
- You know buzzwords so you are informed about technology
- Token story about the EU