|
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 |
On August 22 2026 08:21 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2026 06:00 Billyboy wrote:On August 22 2026 05:53 Acrofales wrote:On August 22 2026 05:32 Billyboy wrote:On August 22 2026 05:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 22 2026 02:11 Gorsameth wrote:On August 22 2026 01:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 22 2026 01:21 Gorsameth wrote:On August 22 2026 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 21 2026 22:31 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
I agree. Social media is a cancer on society. It is addictive and influences people to be the worst possible version of themselves. Is social media really that bad in itself? Would it still be so toxic without capitalism? Fascism/Nazism aren't an individual consumerist lifestyle choice or reaction to social media or even economic conditions in themselves. It's actually a sort of cannibalistic racial capitalism trying to preserve itself during a terminal crisis. They emerge/gain power when capitalist structures face deep structural collapse. They use state power, extreme nationalism, and violence to violently reorganize society and protect the property of specific "elites". social media wants you to be engaged with it, so it feeds you the thing it thinks you want to see thereby creating ego chambers. And that is before we get into the way our mind reacts to instant quick fire dopamine access which leads to addiction. Capitalism doesn't make it toxic, the money being earned with it isn't the main issue. Its the instant gratification. Whether social media or gaming, the instant gratification mechanic is designed as an incentive to keep you engaged to see more ads (buy subscriptions, cosmetics, gochas, etc) for profit. If social media was a utility (like for people to share updates/scheduling of friends and family activities) it wouldn't need or really benefit from that mechanic. It'd be like a water company trying to trick you into using more water without a profit incentive. So you propose a system where there is no competition, you get payed your salary by the company/state regardless of how good or bad your product is. Money just exists and is given to you? + Show Spoiler +Because so long as performance matters, so long as healthy competition exists, which is imo rather crucial for progress in any field, then 'engagement' will matter for social media.
yes capitalism pushes things to undesirable extremes and leads Meta to attempt to build an addictive social media platform, but the underlying basis of 'give the customer what they want' isn't tied to capitalism itself. + Show Spoiler +And instagram filling your eyeballs with cat pics is desirable by the consumer. That sounds like a MAGA teenager providing a caricature of communism The short answer is no, that's not what I'm proposing. We all know we're not the customers of social media getting what we want right? We're the product, being held captive by a multi-decade scientifically engineered prison without bars, being sold to the Epstein class to be manipulated (using decades/billions of dollars worth of research) into buying/doing whatever serves their interests? We don’t all know that, it’s made up and a direct violation of rule two. Which you do over and over and over. Tbf in the case of social media, it may not be explicitly you the product, but it's definitely data about you. Either to sell you stuff, or convince you of stuff. Manipulate seems like a fair summary. And if you don't know that yet, then I'm wondering what rock you've been living under. Meta has had a bunch of scandals, with Cambridge Analytics obviously the big one, but plenty of others where they've clearly abused the data they collected, and had to justify themselves to Congress (and gotten mega fines from the EU). So I guess if you don't take it as self-evident, I wonder what you think social media's business model is, and how it isn't summarised by what GH said? Engineered prison without bars is pretty fucking over the top given that you can simply choose not use it. I know this because I do. No need to sane wash. An engineered prison without bars that they have to use for organizing purposes, no less.
This isn't even a radical position. Hence the lawsuits:
One state attorney general described the case as "the largest consumer protection lawsuit in American history".
"We'll show a jury that Meta concealed what it knew about the harm its products cause young people because looking away was more profitable," said Kentucky Attorney General (AG) Russell Coleman.
"AGs are in the perfect position to get this done. We did it with the Tobacco Settlement in the 1990s. We did it with the companies behind the opioid crisis. We'll do it again with Meta."
www.bbc.com
Addiction as a prison without bars isn't mine either. That's a longstanding turn of phrase in addiction work.
I don't mind people disagreeing with me, or even some vitriol every now and again, but please do better than this mindless shitposting.
|
On August 22 2026 08:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2026 08:21 LightSpectra wrote:On August 22 2026 06:00 Billyboy wrote:On August 22 2026 05:53 Acrofales wrote:On August 22 2026 05:32 Billyboy wrote:On August 22 2026 05:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 22 2026 02:11 Gorsameth wrote:On August 22 2026 01:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 22 2026 01:21 Gorsameth wrote:On August 22 2026 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Is social media really that bad in itself? Would it still be so toxic without capitalism?
Fascism/Nazism aren't an individual consumerist lifestyle choice or reaction to social media or even economic conditions in themselves. It's actually a sort of cannibalistic racial capitalism trying to preserve itself during a terminal crisis. They emerge/gain power when capitalist structures face deep structural collapse. They use state power, extreme nationalism, and violence to violently reorganize society and protect the property of specific "elites". social media wants you to be engaged with it, so it feeds you the thing it thinks you want to see thereby creating ego chambers. And that is before we get into the way our mind reacts to instant quick fire dopamine access which leads to addiction. Capitalism doesn't make it toxic, the money being earned with it isn't the main issue. Its the instant gratification. Whether social media or gaming, the instant gratification mechanic is designed as an incentive to keep you engaged to see more ads (buy subscriptions, cosmetics, gochas, etc) for profit. If social media was a utility (like for people to share updates/scheduling of friends and family activities) it wouldn't need or really benefit from that mechanic. It'd be like a water company trying to trick you into using more water without a profit incentive. So you propose a system where there is no competition, you get payed your salary by the company/state regardless of how good or bad your product is. Money just exists and is given to you? + Show Spoiler +Because so long as performance matters, so long as healthy competition exists, which is imo rather crucial for progress in any field, then 'engagement' will matter for social media.
yes capitalism pushes things to undesirable extremes and leads Meta to attempt to build an addictive social media platform, but the underlying basis of 'give the customer what they want' isn't tied to capitalism itself. + Show Spoiler +And instagram filling your eyeballs with cat pics is desirable by the consumer. That sounds like a MAGA teenager providing a caricature of communism The short answer is no, that's not what I'm proposing. We all know we're not the customers of social media getting what we want right? We're the product, being held captive by a multi-decade scientifically engineered prison without bars, being sold to the Epstein class to be manipulated (using decades/billions of dollars worth of research) into buying/doing whatever serves their interests? We don’t all know that, it’s made up and a direct violation of rule two. Which you do over and over and over. Tbf in the case of social media, it may not be explicitly you the product, but it's definitely data about you. Either to sell you stuff, or convince you of stuff. Manipulate seems like a fair summary. And if you don't know that yet, then I'm wondering what rock you've been living under. Meta has had a bunch of scandals, with Cambridge Analytics obviously the big one, but plenty of others where they've clearly abused the data they collected, and had to justify themselves to Congress (and gotten mega fines from the EU). So I guess if you don't take it as self-evident, I wonder what you think social media's business model is, and how it isn't summarised by what GH said? Engineered prison without bars is pretty fucking over the top given that you can simply choose not use it. I know this because I do. No need to sane wash. An engineered prison without bars that they have to use for organizing purposes, no less. This isn't even a radical position. Hence the lawsuits: Show nested quote +One state attorney general described the case as "the largest consumer protection lawsuit in American history".
"We'll show a jury that Meta concealed what it knew about the harm its products cause young people because looking away was more profitable," said Kentucky Attorney General (AG) Russell Coleman.
"AGs are in the perfect position to get this done. We did it with the Tobacco Settlement in the 1990s. We did it with the companies behind the opioid crisis. We'll do it again with Meta." www.bbc.comAddiction as a prison without bars isn't mine either. That's a longstanding turn of phrase in addiction work. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, or even some vitriol every now and again, but please do better than this mindless shitposting.
So by your own logic you are hopelessly addicted to social media and it is heavily influencing your thinking. Does this cause you to even pause and question why have so many agreements with the far right posters? Or do you think somehow your algorithms have beaten musk at al and you are not reading exactly what they want?
|
On August 22 2026 08:25 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2026 08:21 LightSpectra wrote:On August 22 2026 06:00 Billyboy wrote:On August 22 2026 05:53 Acrofales wrote:On August 22 2026 05:32 Billyboy wrote:On August 22 2026 05:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 22 2026 02:11 Gorsameth wrote:On August 22 2026 01:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 22 2026 01:21 Gorsameth wrote:On August 22 2026 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Is social media really that bad in itself? Would it still be so toxic without capitalism?
Fascism/Nazism aren't an individual consumerist lifestyle choice or reaction to social media or even economic conditions in themselves. It's actually a sort of cannibalistic racial capitalism trying to preserve itself during a terminal crisis. They emerge/gain power when capitalist structures face deep structural collapse. They use state power, extreme nationalism, and violence to violently reorganize society and protect the property of specific "elites". social media wants you to be engaged with it, so it feeds you the thing it thinks you want to see thereby creating ego chambers. And that is before we get into the way our mind reacts to instant quick fire dopamine access which leads to addiction. Capitalism doesn't make it toxic, the money being earned with it isn't the main issue. Its the instant gratification. Whether social media or gaming, the instant gratification mechanic is designed as an incentive to keep you engaged to see more ads (buy subscriptions, cosmetics, gochas, etc) for profit. If social media was a utility (like for people to share updates/scheduling of friends and family activities) it wouldn't need or really benefit from that mechanic. It'd be like a water company trying to trick you into using more water without a profit incentive. So you propose a system where there is no competition, you get payed your salary by the company/state regardless of how good or bad your product is. Money just exists and is given to you? + Show Spoiler +Because so long as performance matters, so long as healthy competition exists, which is imo rather crucial for progress in any field, then 'engagement' will matter for social media.
yes capitalism pushes things to undesirable extremes and leads Meta to attempt to build an addictive social media platform, but the underlying basis of 'give the customer what they want' isn't tied to capitalism itself. + Show Spoiler +And instagram filling your eyeballs with cat pics is desirable by the consumer. That sounds like a MAGA teenager providing a caricature of communism The short answer is no, that's not what I'm proposing. We all know we're not the customers of social media getting what we want right? We're the product, being held captive by a multi-decade scientifically engineered prison without bars, being sold to the Epstein class to be manipulated (using decades/billions of dollars worth of research) into buying/doing whatever serves their interests? We don’t all know that, it’s made up and a direct violation of rule two. Which you do over and over and over. Tbf in the case of social media, it may not be explicitly you the product, but it's definitely data about you. Either to sell you stuff, or convince you of stuff. Manipulate seems like a fair summary. And if you don't know that yet, then I'm wondering what rock you've been living under. Meta has had a bunch of scandals, with Cambridge Analytics obviously the big one, but plenty of others where they've clearly abused the data they collected, and had to justify themselves to Congress (and gotten mega fines from the EU). So I guess if you don't take it as self-evident, I wonder what you think social media's business model is, and how it isn't summarised by what GH said? Engineered prison without bars is pretty fucking over the top given that you can simply choose not use it. I know this because I do. No need to sane wash. An engineered prison without bars that they have to use for organizing purposes, no less. Luckily he is immune, unlike mere mortals. Definitely not down the rabbit hole that feeds him garbage. No chance this is why him and the far right agree so much.
Yeah they posted an actual Republican account's attack ad against the Wisconsin gubernatorial Democratic candidate a few pages back in complete agreement. Unironically a strong argument for banning social media so addicts "organizers" like GH stop falling for misinformation.
|
I mean, I’m totally for social media regulation or bans. It is just strange to hold the belief that social media is the devil and controls people’s minds and use it, thinking you are somehow immune. Especially when they are owned and controlled by the people you consider the worst of the worst.
|
On August 21 2026 22:40 LightSpectra wrote:
There's a lot of discourse about how economic downturns directly leads people to fascism or other extremist ideologies, but that hasn't actually played out in history. There have been 30 or so recessions and depressions in United States history and while it's true that Know Nothings and Teabaggers arose after some of them, there were also plenty of similarly-sized extremist groups that arose during prosperous times, and almost all of them petered out without receiving significant political power the way MAGA did. It can't be a coincidence that everyone owning a smartphone with social media coincided with the meteoric rise of far-right movements across the world and it can't simply be explained by material conditions.
Economic downfall leads to more crime and more radical policies are a known fact.
You can blame it on social media, but social media like any other media, only spread more information.
We aren't being shut in by mainstream media/state media, because people can directly access all sort of information from people being directly impacted.
Globalist policies has been going on past non stop for a decade, a strong conservative movment was bound to happen sooner or later to so correction.
"People shouldn't be so extreme" or "they are getting wrong information" is not something your mind should go to, because you are begging for having even more gov controlled narrative.
|
United States44250 Posts
On August 22 2026 09:45 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2026 22:40 LightSpectra wrote:
There's a lot of discourse about how economic downturns directly leads people to fascism or other extremist ideologies, but that hasn't actually played out in history. There have been 30 or so recessions and depressions in United States history and while it's true that Know Nothings and Teabaggers arose after some of them, there were also plenty of similarly-sized extremist groups that arose during prosperous times, and almost all of them petered out without receiving significant political power the way MAGA did. It can't be a coincidence that everyone owning a smartphone with social media coincided with the meteoric rise of far-right movements across the world and it can't simply be explained by material conditions. Economic downfall leads to more crime and more radical policies are a known fact. You can blame it on social media, but social media like any other media, only spread more information. We aren't being shut in by mainstream media/state media, because people can directly access all sort of information from people being directly impacted. Globalist policies has been going on past non stop for a decade, a strong conservative movment was bound to happen sooner or later to so correction. "People shouldn't be so extreme" or "they are getting wrong information" is not something your mind should go to, because you are begging for having even more gov controlled narrative.
Social media only spreads information sure is an assertion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
