You are now our linguistic vanguard.

You might wanna watch this. It is one interpretative framework you can see it through.

https://youtu.be/5xEi8qg266g?si=kzI_g4tbNm8Xkiac

Interesting approach, gonna think about it. So far I didn’t take disinformation as a result of news companies going broke.

Why would people forget that the BBC is more trustworthy then someones uncle, just because his opinion is for free? The distrust in “old authorities” like big newspaper or governments is, in my opinion, a long-term result of the broken promisses of the hegemony they are, or seem to be, part of.

The concept “people have to have to pay for quality information” doesn’t sit right with me. Relevant info should be available for everyone! And trustworthy news orgs should be funded pubicly.

You’re probably right I had been a bit behind regarding the discourse about the internet. I was in my early teenage years and just started knowing about it.

And for your second claim: If you define communism the way I usually do (the social principle of coorperating to fulfill everyones needs), it seems likely the internet would be designed towards peoples needs, rather than companies profits. Of course it would still consume ressources to provide cat videos, but the required ressources might be less, since cooperating/sharing ressources is more efficient than competing.

I remember being all “omg great the internet will finally free information everything will be awesome” in like 2008.

Then I read some Marxist analysis saying “nope, rather sooner than later the market principles, as the hegemonial/contemporary means of humans organizing themselves, will fuck it up and it will kinda suck lile everything else”

I even remember that feeling of hope: “nah this time they’re wrong”.

Turns out if you don’t change the political economy, shit trickles up into any nice social project.

… also this is why I love niches like reddit (ba dum tss), feddit

Excellent discourse right there

I suggest a social structure based on competition (wich has winners, thus increases injustice) decreases empathy, solidarity. This makes both animals and humans suffer. The incentive to change said structure (wich is always opposed to the work/risk it requires) is higher, the more it improves the chances of life getting better. Human life is more powerfull in that sense, compared to animal life. In other words: It is more likely to get humans to (severly) improve the world for humans. We are stronger wired for empathy with humans. Empathy with animals should not be a substitute for missing empathy with people. Does that make sense?

How to self-marginalize as quickly as possible while making the least impact on society