|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States43259 Posts
On September 19 2025 09:26 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2025 09:20 ThunderJunk wrote:On September 19 2025 09:13 KwarK wrote:On September 19 2025 08:58 ThunderJunk wrote:On September 19 2025 08:27 KwarK wrote:On September 19 2025 07:35 ThunderJunk wrote:
Realistically, the people who run the country are the people who have the most seats on the board of directors of all the public-facing companies. So, whoever is in charge of the companies that manage 401k assets and such. Presidents larp control, and they do have some real authority to do some stuff, but compared to someone like Larry Fink, even the US presidency is small potatoes. No Ever worked for a publicly traded company? They all merge into the same corporate cubicle culture because the CEOs are all beholden to the same people. I just read about about the CEO of nvdia. Never sold his company stock. Still had to bend the knee to the vanguard reps who had majority shares. Richest man on the planet built the company from the ground up, and still had to bend the knee about the direction of his company. Take the same guy, put him in a room with a president. He's shaking hands and making deals, feeling all good. No bending. Yeah, no. The real powers of the world stay hidden, and make things happen from the shadows. No one in politics is going to post up against someone like Fink. If you show me someone in politics posting up against Fink, I'll change my view on this. But you won't be able to. You can buy shares in blackrock, it‘s not some shadowy company that rules secretly. If you own it, Fink is responsible for your share. (Lobbying exists though) As for the suspension of certain reactions on live tv or lack thereof, it‘s within the limits of what to expect from this administration.
I always enjoy it when they literally don’t understand how depositing an asset with a broker or custodian works. Whether it’s banking or stockholding some people are always like “Who is this nefarious J.P. Morgan and where did all the money come from? What’s his angle? He reported having $2.5t in cash, what’s he doing with all that?”
Of course the mainstream media will say that millions of Americans just decided to give JP their money to hold but that doesn’t make sense. Like they just walked in with cash and handed it over. Why would they do that? There must be more going on. Dragons probably.
|
Northern Ireland26078 Posts
On September 19 2025 09:40 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2025 09:31 Acrofales wrote:
Are we really discussing a rehash of a shadowy banker cabal that secretly runs the world? That's such a Nazi thing to be talking about. Could also just be alt-right. But I don‘t want to jump to conclusions, it could just be ThunderJunk.
Yeah they’re definitely alt-right.
You can tell because they’re making traditionally left wing criticisms of how things operate, which is how you can identify people who are alt-right.
Honestly I find it shameful that Thunderjunk tried to hide their alt right leanings in rhetoric that could conceivably have been couched in left wing tradition. What a fucking bastard/bastardess they are, I’m truly outraged by their transgressions
|
On September 19 2025 10:06 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2025 09:40 Vivax wrote:On September 19 2025 09:31 Acrofales wrote:
Are we really discussing a rehash of a shadowy banker cabal that secretly runs the world? That's such a Nazi thing to be talking about. Could also just be alt-right. But I don‘t want to jump to conclusions, it could just be ThunderJunk. Yeah they’re definitely alt-right. You can tell because they’re making traditionally left wing criticisms of how things operate, which is how you can identify people who are alt-right. Honestly I find it shameful that Thunderjunk tried to hide their alt right leanings in rhetoric that could conceivably have been couched in left wing tradition. What a fucking bastard/bastardess they are, I’m truly outraged by their transgressions
You live, you learn.
Sometimes by avoiding certain mediums or not leaving the house anymore.
Where I live it‘s a sanctuary for the thunderjunks of this world.
|
Northern Ireland26078 Posts
On September 19 2025 10:23 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2025 10:06 WombaT wrote:On September 19 2025 09:40 Vivax wrote:On September 19 2025 09:31 Acrofales wrote:
Are we really discussing a rehash of a shadowy banker cabal that secretly runs the world? That's such a Nazi thing to be talking about. Could also just be alt-right. But I don‘t want to jump to conclusions, it could just be ThunderJunk. Yeah they’re definitely alt-right. You can tell because they’re making traditionally left wing criticisms of how things operate, which is how you can identify people who are alt-right. Honestly I find it shameful that Thunderjunk tried to hide their alt right leanings in rhetoric that could conceivably have been couched in left wing tradition. What a fucking bastard/bastardess they are, I’m truly outraged by their transgressions You live, you learn. Sometimes by avoiding certain mediums or not leaving the house anymore. Where I live it‘s a sanctuary for the thunderjunks of this world.
On September 12 2025 00:32 ThunderJunk wrote:
Honestly... I don't feel even a little sad about Kirk's murder.
He was a morally grandstanding rage baiter who accrued a net worth of 12 million dollars by "DESTROYING" dumb college kids publicly. He was also intellectually dishonest. His entire life's thesis supposedly revolved around his faith in scripture and the basic protestant brand of Christianity, but when confronted with the simple reality that, in fact, the King James bible is necessarily a linguistically ambiguous translation through the British lens of the original language the bible was written in - which would by his own definition be the most technically holy type of scripture, and therefore not as a reliable source of what is right and good as he maintained.. he just ignored the point, pressed forward with his views, and never took that fundamental problem with his conceptual framework seriously - nor would he ever.
I have a problem with people who claim to be fighters for truth who refuse to look at their own beliefs critically when confronted with evidence contrary to what makes them rich and powerful. That, to my mind, is fundamentally evil.
Also... And this is more of a petty point - but still completely fair: He was a staunch advocate from the right to bear arms. So, this way of getting killed was pretty poetically satisfying.
If freedom of speech is truly at issue here - I'll maintain the right to express that I think whoever killed Charlie did humanity a big favor.
Yep, definitely the sentiments of an alt-righter there. Unless the ‘alternative’ part of that is so stretched that to be ‘alt-right’ is not to be particularly right wing at all.
I mean granted I’m talking in a thread that doesn’t think people celebrated Charle Kirk’s death and it was just bots, so there is that.
|
On September 19 2025 10:41 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2025 10:23 Vivax wrote:On September 19 2025 10:06 WombaT wrote:On September 19 2025 09:40 Vivax wrote:On September 19 2025 09:31 Acrofales wrote:
Are we really discussing a rehash of a shadowy banker cabal that secretly runs the world? That's such a Nazi thing to be talking about. Could also just be alt-right. But I don‘t want to jump to conclusions, it could just be ThunderJunk. Yeah they’re definitely alt-right. You can tell because they’re making traditionally left wing criticisms of how things operate, which is how you can identify people who are alt-right. Honestly I find it shameful that Thunderjunk tried to hide their alt right leanings in rhetoric that could conceivably have been couched in left wing tradition. What a fucking bastard/bastardess they are, I’m truly outraged by their transgressions You live, you learn. Sometimes by avoiding certain mediums or not leaving the house anymore. Where I live it‘s a sanctuary for the thunderjunks of this world. Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 00:32 ThunderJunk wrote:
Honestly... I don't feel even a little sad about Kirk's murder.
He was a morally grandstanding rage baiter who accrued a net worth of 12 million dollars by "DESTROYING" dumb college kids publicly. He was also intellectually dishonest. His entire life's thesis supposedly revolved around his faith in scripture and the basic protestant brand of Christianity, but when confronted with the simple reality that, in fact, the King James bible is necessarily a linguistically ambiguous translation through the British lens of the original language the bible was written in - which would by his own definition be the most technically holy type of scripture, and therefore not as a reliable source of what is right and good as he maintained.. he just ignored the point, pressed forward with his views, and never took that fundamental problem with his conceptual framework seriously - nor would he ever.
I have a problem with people who claim to be fighters for truth who refuse to look at their own beliefs critically when confronted with evidence contrary to what makes them rich and powerful. That, to my mind, is fundamentally evil.
Also... And this is more of a petty point - but still completely fair: He was a staunch advocate from the right to bear arms. So, this way of getting killed was pretty poetically satisfying.
If freedom of speech is truly at issue here - I'll maintain the right to express that I think whoever killed Charlie did humanity a big favor. Yep, definitely the sentiments of an alt-righter there. Unless the ‘alternative’ part of that is so stretched that to be ‘alt-right’ is not to be particularly right wing at all. I mean granted I’m talking in a thread that doesn’t think people celebrated Charle Kirk’s death and it was just bots, so there is that.
You‘re right I guess. I just got carried away with his handle  .
Thanks for clearing that up.
|
On September 19 2025 06:15 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2025 04:52 Magic Powers wrote:On September 19 2025 02:00 castleeMg wrote:On September 19 2025 01:52 Vivax wrote:On September 19 2025 01:48 castleeMg wrote:On September 19 2025 01:32 Vivax wrote:On September 19 2025 01:29 castleeMg wrote:On September 19 2025 01:20 Vivax wrote:On September 19 2025 00:43 castleeMg wrote:On September 19 2025 00:15 Sadist wrote:
[quote]
Democrats cannot be responsible for random posts on social media. The republicans dont want to play that game.
That’s not the argument, of course they can’t be responsible for what random people post. The argument was that biff said “everyone condemned Kirk’s death” which is absolutely not true. I saw compiled clips of sickos praising his death and commending the shooter. There are even people in this thread that never outright praised the shooter but instead borderline rationalized his actions by saying things like “he had it coming” and “live by the sword, die by the sword” Nobody knows who made said clips. Were you looking at an opinion or at ragebait ? Hard to tell these days when social media seems like a centrally controlled blob. So you’re really on the side that some people didn’t make social media posts praising Charlie Kirk’s death who genuinely meant it? Those must of just been bad actors on the right? I’m sure when random people on the right post horrible things you’ll be quick to point the finger at them but when it’s the left it’s always some conspiracy that the right is actually behind it? Thats what you’re alluding to correct? No I‘m saying I don‘t know which one of the two it is. I don‘t know who made the clips and if they benefit from it. I don‘t even know if Americans made them. What if they were Russian ? Or German neonazis ? You can type “Celebrating kirks death” on Twitter and see the numerous posts and videos of real people celebrating his death. Likely right wing accounts reposted the videos and posts but does that make a difference if the posts are genuine and real? I don‘t use twitter or similar platforms. Can‘t make me. When I used to browse it, I got my head filled with nonsense. It‘s hardly going to be better now. The old “I refuse to read or watch it so I can’t confirm it to be true” response What an argument. Lol I've deleted my Twitter account years ago and I feel great about it. Highly recommended. It's a terrible place and I hear it's only gotten worse. It's great if you're trying to speedrun seeing every racial slur in the dictionary. Bluesky is in a good spot right now. There's still some engagement trolling, but if you just want to follow some artists and critics it's perfect.
https://x.com/PeterPaulGuy/status/1966140407592726547
All this artists and critics...
On September 18 2025 23:44 Jankisa wrote:
I can guarantee you that despite this whole shitstorm of them getting people fired
On September 19 2025 03:58 Jankisa wrote:
I don't think that right is correct, again, random people online of which many can be bots and there is no way to verify who they are does not mean that "the left is/was celebrating" or "gleefully joking".
How do you post both of this in span of few hours?
Edit: Also this:
On September 19 2025 03:58 Jankisa wrote:
I personally don't judge any group of people based on the actions of the worse among them, that leads to all kinds of fucked up shit, and that's what right does, that's what allows them to other and go after their opponents.
Oh the irony.
|
On September 19 2025 09:20 ThunderJunk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2025 09:13 KwarK wrote:On September 19 2025 08:58 ThunderJunk wrote:On September 19 2025 08:27 KwarK wrote:On September 19 2025 07:35 ThunderJunk wrote:
Realistically, the people who run the country are the people who have the most seats on the board of directors of all the public-facing companies. So, whoever is in charge of the companies that manage 401k assets and such. Presidents larp control, and they do have some real authority to do some stuff, but compared to someone like Larry Fink, even the US presidency is small potatoes. No Ever worked for a publicly traded company? They all merge into the same corporate cubicle culture because the CEOs are all beholden to the same people. I just read about about the CEO of nvdia. Never sold his company stock. Still had to bend the knee to the vanguard reps who had majority shares. Richest man on the planet built the company from the ground up, and still had to bend the knee about the direction of his company. Take the same guy, put him in a room with a president. He's shaking hands and making deals, feeling all good. No bending. Yeah, no. The real powers of the world stay hidden, and make things happen from the shadows. No one in politics is going to post up against someone like Fink. If you show me someone in politics posting up against Fink, I'll change my view on this. But you won't be able to.
Normally I'd have agreed with you, but observing this latest Trump administration is really revealing how much leverage the government has over these corporations, and while I think if corporations did all exercise their power together they likely are a more powerful force than the government (assuming we're not factoring in the military, obviously) they're all too busy chasing money to get that organized. So the government threatens to fuck with a merger or something potentially costing them money and they fold because money money money.
|
Northern Ireland26078 Posts
On September 19 2025 11:05 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2025 09:20 ThunderJunk wrote:On September 19 2025 09:13 KwarK wrote:On September 19 2025 08:58 ThunderJunk wrote:On September 19 2025 08:27 KwarK wrote:On September 19 2025 07:35 ThunderJunk wrote:
Realistically, the people who run the country are the people who have the most seats on the board of directors of all the public-facing companies. So, whoever is in charge of the companies that manage 401k assets and such. Presidents larp control, and they do have some real authority to do some stuff, but compared to someone like Larry Fink, even the US presidency is small potatoes. No Ever worked for a publicly traded company? They all merge into the same corporate cubicle culture because the CEOs are all beholden to the same people. I just read about about the CEO of nvdia. Never sold his company stock. Still had to bend the knee to the vanguard reps who had majority shares. Richest man on the planet built the company from the ground up, and still had to bend the knee about the direction of his company. Take the same guy, put him in a room with a president. He's shaking hands and making deals, feeling all good. No bending. Yeah, no. The real powers of the world stay hidden, and make things happen from the shadows. No one in politics is going to post up against someone like Fink. If you show me someone in politics posting up against Fink, I'll change my view on this. But you won't be able to. Normally I'd have agreed with you, but observing this latest Trump administration is really revealing how much leverage the government has over these corporations, and while I think if corporations did all exercise their power together they likely are a more powerful force than the government (assuming we're not factoring in the military, obviously) they're all too busy chasing money to get that organized. So the government threatens to fuck with a merger or something potentially costing them money and they fold because money money money.
Same.
It’s broadly been applied in a manner I don’t approve of, but Trump and MAGAism have shown you can make corporations bend the knee on occasion.
You clearly can do it, we’re seeing it now.
The Dems don’t even need to breach new cultural ground, it is the new culture. It’s established now.
Knowing the Dems of course, their strategy for upcoming elections is going to be a doomed attempt to placate ‘moderates’ who aren’t moderate, and good luck with that. Nothing bold that people might actually like.
British Labour, our traditional left wing party (although in modern times a very centre left one) are attempting something similar and getting crushed. They’re trying to grab back the lunatics, but they can’t be more lunatic than the lunatic party, so they don’t. In the process they just alienate their actual base who would rather they didn’t try to appeal to the lunatic party ahead of them,
We’re gonna get something similar in the US cycle I reckon.
We’ll get like Gavin Newsom just lecturing people about how important it is to have open-minded conversations with people who want to stick immigrants in cages, or how people are wrong to call obvious racists, racist. Real inspiring shit
And then we’re at the stage where we’re just relying on whoever the Trump successor is to be so shit that a Newsom to scrape over the line. And not because we think Newsom will make things better, but that the alternative will make things even worse.
|
On September 19 2025 11:58 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2025 11:05 Zambrah wrote:On September 19 2025 09:20 ThunderJunk wrote:On September 19 2025 09:13 KwarK wrote:On September 19 2025 08:58 ThunderJunk wrote:On September 19 2025 08:27 KwarK wrote:On September 19 2025 07:35 ThunderJunk wrote:
Realistically, the people who run the country are the people who have the most seats on the board of directors of all the public-facing companies. So, whoever is in charge of the companies that manage 401k assets and such. Presidents larp control, and they do have some real authority to do some stuff, but compared to someone like Larry Fink, even the US presidency is small potatoes. No Ever worked for a publicly traded company? They all merge into the same corporate cubicle culture because the CEOs are all beholden to the same people. I just read about about the CEO of nvdia. Never sold his company stock. Still had to bend the knee to the vanguard reps who had majority shares. Richest man on the planet built the company from the ground up, and still had to bend the knee about the direction of his company. Take the same guy, put him in a room with a president. He's shaking hands and making deals, feeling all good. No bending. Yeah, no. The real powers of the world stay hidden, and make things happen from the shadows. No one in politics is going to post up against someone like Fink. If you show me someone in politics posting up against Fink, I'll change my view on this. But you won't be able to. Normally I'd have agreed with you, but observing this latest Trump administration is really revealing how much leverage the government has over these corporations, and while I think if corporations did all exercise their power together they likely are a more powerful force than the government (assuming we're not factoring in the military, obviously) they're all too busy chasing money to get that organized. So the government threatens to fuck with a merger or something potentially costing them money and they fold because money money money. Same. It’s broadly been applied in a manner I don’t approve of, but Trump and MAGAism have shown you can make corporations bend the knee on occasion. You clearly can do it, we’re seeing it now. The Dems don’t even need to breach new cultural ground, it is the new culture. It’s established now. Knowing the Dems of course, their strategy for upcoming elections is going to be a doomed attempt to placate ‘moderates’ who aren’t moderate, and good luck with that. Nothing bold that people might actually like. British Labour, our traditional left wing party (although in modern times a very centre left one) are attempting something similar and getting crushed. They’re trying to grab back the lunatics, but they can’t be more lunatic than the lunatic party, so they don’t. In the process they just alienate their actual base who would rather they didn’t try to appeal to the lunatic party ahead of them, We’re gonna get something similar in the US cycle I reckon. We’ll get like Gavin Newsom just lecturing people about how important it is to have open-minded conversations with people who want to stick immigrants in cages, or how people are wrong to call obvious racists, racist. Real inspiring shit And then we’re at the stage where we’re just relying on whoever the Trump successor is to be so shit that a Newsom to scrape over the line. And not because we think Newsom will make things better, but that the alternative will make things even worse.
Really fills you with hope for the future, dunnit
|
So, addressing the root of the problem, how do we eliminate social media? That's honestly what needs to go. I'm not going to pretend that hatred and tribalism weren't always part of the american condition, but socmed (once algorithmic) started platforming ragebait and agitprop, and feeding the feeling of acceptance of people's most destructive opinions. Trump is right that social media needs to go, but obviously he's just going to get rid of left-leaning social media, and force companies to prioritize right-wing, racist, and anti-lgbt voices. How the hell do we get rid of these platforms without pulling a silverhand?
|
Northern Ireland26078 Posts
On September 19 2025 12:31 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2025 11:58 WombaT wrote:On September 19 2025 11:05 Zambrah wrote:On September 19 2025 09:20 ThunderJunk wrote:On September 19 2025 09:13 KwarK wrote:On September 19 2025 08:58 ThunderJunk wrote:On September 19 2025 08:27 KwarK wrote:On September 19 2025 07:35 ThunderJunk wrote:
Realistically, the people who run the country are the people who have the most seats on the board of directors of all the public-facing companies. So, whoever is in charge of the companies that manage 401k assets and such. Presidents larp control, and they do have some real authority to do some stuff, but compared to someone like Larry Fink, even the US presidency is small potatoes. No Ever worked for a publicly traded company? They all merge into the same corporate cubicle culture because the CEOs are all beholden to the same people. I just read about about the CEO of nvdia. Never sold his company stock. Still had to bend the knee to the vanguard reps who had majority shares. Richest man on the planet built the company from the ground up, and still had to bend the knee about the direction of his company. Take the same guy, put him in a room with a president. He's shaking hands and making deals, feeling all good. No bending. Yeah, no. The real powers of the world stay hidden, and make things happen from the shadows. No one in politics is going to post up against someone like Fink. If you show me someone in politics posting up against Fink, I'll change my view on this. But you won't be able to. Normally I'd have agreed with you, but observing this latest Trump administration is really revealing how much leverage the government has over these corporations, and while I think if corporations did all exercise their power together they likely are a more powerful force than the government (assuming we're not factoring in the military, obviously) they're all too busy chasing money to get that organized. So the government threatens to fuck with a merger or something potentially costing them money and they fold because money money money. Same. It’s broadly been applied in a manner I don’t approve of, but Trump and MAGAism have shown you can make corporations bend the knee on occasion. You clearly can do it, we’re seeing it now. The Dems don’t even need to breach new cultural ground, it is the new culture. It’s established now. Knowing the Dems of course, their strategy for upcoming elections is going to be a doomed attempt to placate ‘moderates’ who aren’t moderate, and good luck with that. Nothing bold that people might actually like. British Labour, our traditional left wing party (although in modern times a very centre left one) are attempting something similar and getting crushed. They’re trying to grab back the lunatics, but they can’t be more lunatic than the lunatic party, so they don’t. In the process they just alienate their actual base who would rather they didn’t try to appeal to the lunatic party ahead of them, We’re gonna get something similar in the US cycle I reckon. We’ll get like Gavin Newsom just lecturing people about how important it is to have open-minded conversations with people who want to stick immigrants in cages, or how people are wrong to call obvious racists, racist. Real inspiring shit And then we’re at the stage where we’re just relying on whoever the Trump successor is to be so shit that a Newsom to scrape over the line. And not because we think Newsom will make things better, but that the alternative will make things even worse. Really fills you with hope for the future, dunnit
It’s inspiring shit indeed.
Obviously Kirk departing this mortal coil is topical, but this is besides that.
Newsom’s little podcast tour and ‘reaching across the aisle’, if it’s to be his USP, oh boy.
I listened to one, which happened to be with Charlie Kirk. It was very cordial so long as Newsom basically just agreed. The second it wasn’t, well Mr Kirk got very vociferous indeed.
And that, in microcosm is what civility and trying to appeal to the better natures of those across the aisle looks like nowdays. It’s a fool’s errand.
Most of the new audience will still despise your politics. Your existing theoretical base will despise you for trying to appeal to shitbags instead of trying to appeal to them.
|
Northern Ireland26078 Posts
On September 19 2025 12:39 Phyanketto wrote:
So, addressing the root of the problem, how do we eliminate social media? That's honestly what needs to go. I'm not going to pretend that hatred and tribalism weren't always part of the american condition, but socmed (once algorithmic) started platforming ragebait and agitprop, and feeding the feeling of acceptance of people's most destructive opinions. Trump is right that social media needs to go, but obviously he's just going to get rid of left-leaning social media, and force companies to prioritize right-wing, racist, and anti-lgbt voices. How the hell do we get rid of these platforms without pulling a silverhand?
There are two hopes, both not especially likely.
The EU goes nuts and instills rules that greatly restrict the worst aspects of social media, or people just organically drift away.
I don’t think there’s another institution that either can, or might want to do so, although as I said it’s not super likely.
Not representative remotely, but myself, most of my good friends are now off social media as we think it’s a complete cesspit of outrage farming. Maybe over time that’s more common? I don’t know
My sister is 15 years younger than me and ‘only boomers use Facebook and only cunts use Twitter’ is one of her lines
I’m really stretching here, but maybe over time these platforms failing to deliver what they’re meant to has some effect.
I remember the first incarnations of both Facebook and Twitter. The former was a good way to keep up with your buddies or family or whatever. The latter was quite good for connecting with famous names, and turned out to be quite good for political rallying.
Both platforms are fucking shit for a lot of that now, why I don’t use them.
|
On September 19 2025 13:43 WombaT wrote:
My sister is 15 years younger than me and ‘only boomers use Facebook and only cunts use Twitter’ is one of her lines
I’m really stretching here, but maybe over time these platforms failing to deliver what they’re meant to has some effect.
I remember the first incarnations of both Facebook and Twitter. The former was a good way to keep up with your buddies or family or whatever. The latter was quite good for connecting with famous names, and turned out to be quite good for political rallying.
Both platforms are fucking shit for a lot of that now, why I don’t use them.
your sister is right on both counts but those people still vote. I think the ability to curate your space/what you see is partially what causes the polarization. There are some spaces where it's normalized to be "scientifically racist" or outright sexist, and there is little to no pushback because only people okay with it or who will stay quiet about it see it. Once it achieves critical mass it has a real effect. Say what you will about the tech ceo's, at least they're not broadly drinking their own kool-aid. With the exception leon skum
|
On September 19 2025 13:43 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2025 12:39 Phyanketto wrote:
So, addressing the root of the problem, how do we eliminate social media? That's honestly what needs to go. I'm not going to pretend that hatred and tribalism weren't always part of the american condition, but socmed (once algorithmic) started platforming ragebait and agitprop, and feeding the feeling of acceptance of people's most destructive opinions. Trump is right that social media needs to go, but obviously he's just going to get rid of left-leaning social media, and force companies to prioritize right-wing, racist, and anti-lgbt voices. How the hell do we get rid of these platforms without pulling a silverhand? or people just organically drift away.
The core problem with that is that social media owners have a lot of very competent people working on making their product basically digital crack cocaine.
And in the same way that solving the drug problem through the hope that people will just organically drift away is unlikely, it doesn't seem very likely that people will just stop using digital heroin on their own.
A partial solution is to at least not use heroin yourself.
I agree with you that basically the only hope we have is the EU regulating stuff, but currently it doesn't look as if something like that is even in the pipeline.
|
On September 19 2025 13:43 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2025 12:39 Phyanketto wrote:
So, addressing the root of the problem, how do we eliminate social media? That's honestly what needs to go. I'm not going to pretend that hatred and tribalism weren't always part of the american condition, but socmed (once algorithmic) started platforming ragebait and agitprop, and feeding the feeling of acceptance of people's most destructive opinions. Trump is right that social media needs to go, but obviously he's just going to get rid of left-leaning social media, and force companies to prioritize right-wing, racist, and anti-lgbt voices. How the hell do we get rid of these platforms without pulling a silverhand? There are two hopes, both not especially likely. The EU goes nuts and instills rules that greatly restrict the worst aspects of social media, or people just organically drift away. I don’t think there’s another institution that either can, or might want to do so, although as I said it’s not super likely. Not representative remotely, but myself, most of my good friends are now off social media as we think it’s a complete cesspit of outrage farming. Maybe over time that’s more common? I don’t know My sister is 15 years younger than me and ‘only boomers use Facebook and only cunts use Twitter’ is one of her lines I’m really stretching here, but maybe over time these platforms failing to deliver what they’re meant to has some effect. I remember the first incarnations of both Facebook and Twitter. The former was a good way to keep up with your buddies or family or whatever. The latter was quite good for connecting with famous names, and turned out to be quite good for political rallying. Both platforms are fucking shit for a lot of that now, why I don’t use them.
True, but people didn't stop using social media. Younger people migrated to Instagram, then Snapchat, now TikTok, and there's no doubt something new and shiny just around the corner for those who think TikTok is for boomers.
It's also not only social media. YouTube will give you "news" you want to watch. Google will give you clicks you want to read (or an AI summary of them). It's not social media that's the problem inasmuch as algorithms designed to find what you're most likely to "engage" with, and psychology determining that you're most likely to engage with shocking clickbait headlines that are adjacent to things you engaged with in the past.
So yes, it's (1) all the major tech platforms, and (2) basic human psychology. The cat is never going back in the bag. The only way forward is to educate educate educate and educate people to think critically. It used to be okay for just journalists to do that, and they'd preprocess news. That wasn't perfect. We had things that really were newsworthy but didn't get reported. We still had rags like USA Today that did all the screamy headlines and not much critical thinking. CNN uncritically showed police car chases in their "live news" because watching high speed chases caught eyeballs. And a whole host of related problems. But misinformation was contained by journalistic rules, ethic boards, and most importantly, people who had trained to filter out drivel and report on the news. Now anybody can be a "journalists" (including bots and trollfarms) and the algorithms will uncritically feed you all of that nonsense. That means everyone needs to be a journalist, and learn the important skills of critically evaluating what they read/watch/hear on the internet. And that, unfortunately is (1) not always easy and (2) exhausting. So we go back to guzzling on bot-generated content designed and curated to get our click.
|
Maybe the solution to the algorithms would be banning online advertising. They are tailored towards increasing engagement because that increases ad revenue. Take away the incentive and maybe things go back to how they used to be.
|
On September 19 2025 15:25 maybenexttime wrote:
Maybe the solution to the algorithms would be banning online advertising. They are tailored towards increasing engagement because that increases ad revenue. Take away the incentive and maybe things go back to how they used to be.
Excellent point, but the most powerful companies on earth will never let that happen. That would be like the Chinese government outlawing opium in the 1800's. Big tech and socmed would absolutely go off the reservation and leverage their soft power to institute a technocracy (in the cartel sense)
|
Make them pay minimum wage to users who load their plattforms with content, comments and curations (likes or retweets or whatever).
The users are the staffers that make the content and select the most engaging content that gets sold as advertising space - pay the people.
If your company has more then X Million Dollars of Advertisement-Revenue per month and your main appeal is content made by the users themselves.. the law applys.
Imho this would nuke engagement focussed Social-Crack-Cocaine-Media, since commenting is now done on the work-clock, Bots are getting PAID.
Comment sections have to be closed, when retweeting is $1 each, then popularity balances out with cost.
|
|
|
No, China is it's own country. This is authoritarianism and a cult of personality reinforced by censorship, which happens all the time throughout history. I'm starting to think it's better to compare Trump and friends to the emperor of Japan, with all his little zaibtsu minions
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
