top | item 37764406

(no title)

victorbstan | 2 years ago

Because the “free for all” market that gave rise to Alex Jones and FOX news, etc. really improved American society…

discuss

order

huijzer|2 years ago

Nobody is forcing anyone to watch it. Many people watch it voluntarily. If we are so sure that these media are so bad for people, why are so many people still watching it?

If the answer is that these media "hack" the human brain, then I don't think that banning the producers is the right way to go. The root cause is that people are too easily tricked. Banning the producers will only cause other media, such as YouTube or Facebook, to fill the gap.

sproffle|2 years ago

Exactly right. The solution to a mass movement toward an ignorant and blind viewpoint isn't to censor it, it's to dismantle it with an opposing viewpoint and to provide a less ignorant way forward. Censorship of any kind doesn't solve anything despite what people want to think about Alex Jones or any others.

jpalawaga|2 years ago

Nobody was forcing anyone to drive cars fuel powered by leaded gas either, could it have been so bad? And if it was so bad, why were so many people using it?

I would say that the answer to solve this is education, but unfortunately many states have decided that education is the bad thing, instead of blantantly misleading information. Even if you could teach it successfully in school, how many adults are going to go back to school to learn the media they're consuming is bad? If you're an ardent fox news viewer, how will you view that information?

It's not a solve but it's a help.

ziddoap|2 years ago

>If we are so sure that these media are so bad for people, why are so many people still watching it?

Although I don't have an opinion on this particular podcast situation, this statement doesn't hold any water. You are implying that if people do something, it must not be bad for them because.. people continue to do it.

There are tons of things people do that are objectively bad for them. Hard drugs (fentanyl, etc.) being an easy example.

SiempreViernes|2 years ago

So instead of banning the bad products, do you propose modifying the human genome or pretending that there's no problem at all?

bhdlr|2 years ago

Tons of people were using lead paint and asbestos insulation, why did we ban those products?

pard68|2 years ago

Not to mention "hacks" would go both ways.

AlexandrB|2 years ago

It's not necessary to hack the human brain if you can hack the YouTube algorithm. I get recommended this crap once in a while even though I have zero interest. Starting with a "Private" browsing window, it was pretty common to hit Andrew Tate shorts extremely quickly 6 months ago or so. Jordan Peterson's over-dramatic rants are another favourite YouTube recommendation.

kshahkshah|2 years ago

The free for all market also gave me access to a hundred chefs who vastly improved my cooking. It also gave me access to a dozen woodworkers who taught me how to work safely and efficiently. A whole host of gardeners in my USDA zone with hyper local content relevant to me and taught me about native plants.

The free market has saved me thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars in home repair costs. From changing my blower motor, to installing my Ecobee w/o a common wire, to installing ceiling brackets correctly, repairing my garage trolley.

The free market gave me podcasts and podcasters which taught me a ton about international conflicts and their history. Gave me access to brilliant environmentalists and conservationists doing incredible field work.

The real price I had to pay was hearing people endlessly, endlessly, endlessly complain about, and in so doing, amplify people that they don't listen to, disagree with, and think are harmful.

AlexandrB|2 years ago

> It also gave me access to a dozen woodworkers who taught me how to work safely and efficiently.

And also "woodworkers" who would take transformers out of microwaves and run the resulting current through bare nails to make fractal lightning patterns in wood. If you're starting with a blank slate on wood-based projects how do you differentiate the former from the latter?

spiderfarmer|2 years ago

For an outsider it's baffling to see 50% of the US slowly getting brainwashed to the point where they reject all facts out of spite, and think it is important to be contrarian on literally every social issue.

okeuro49|2 years ago

Also from an outsider, you're talking about the Democrats -- right?

monlockandkey|2 years ago

Which half are you talking about :D

The reason for the two alternate realities in the same country is primarily to do with what information you consume.

As an exercise, go to the front page of Reddit everyday. You will almost always notice on the first page or the first few there are always posts on politics. And the vast majority of these posts are the "bad" takes/actions/scandals on rebuplicans/conservatives.

If you go to r/conservative , you will see the "bad" takes/actions/scandals of the democrats/liberals.

On Reddit the echo chamber for democrats is the entirety of Reddit except for a select few subs. The echo chamber for conservatives is in their own subreddits. On conservative websites this is the opposite.

If one looks only at the Reddit front page, no doubt they would not like the republicans because it's a highlight of their low points. I.e a Reverse Instagram, post all the bad parts of your life.

This is the issue. The two realities is from getting information about how "good" your side is and a feed about all the bad stuff from the other side.

The reason why you think 50% of the population is like that is precisely because the information you have received about that side is their bad highlight reel. And they will equally think the other 50% of the aisle is brainwashed because of all they are viewing your bad highlight reel

quesera|2 years ago

Intentional, and weaponized, delusion of the masses is a pretty common condition in any adequately-large society.

Usually, delusion in the form of institutional acceptance. Religion, nationalism, etc.

Currently in the US, in the form of institutional rejection, which is equally dishonest, but considerably more messy.

pookha|2 years ago

This sounds like the official signaling coming out of the US' nation-state George Creel-styled media. I'm personally grateful for the distributed and non-curated media. DC is just going to have to get over itself and adjust to the changing landscape. There's good and bad. When the original printing press came out the #1 books were for witch hunting and yet society -- in the end -- was better off for it.

jeegsy|2 years ago

> Because the “free for all” market that gave rise to Alex Jones and FOX news, etc. really improved American society…

You either believe in the relevant principle or you don't. These sort of side-swipes at bedrock American principles are completely uncalled for

mock-possum|2 years ago

Ehhhhhh you don’t want to go down that road though. Or at least, I don’t want to. You can still punish people for advocating violence, you don’t need to step in and exert government control over the platforms they use to publish content on.

canadiantim|2 years ago

Ah yes, the modern equivalent of book burning is a much better alternative, right?

thrxio|2 years ago

[deleted]