| ▲ | bux93 12 hours ago |
| It's not what you know, but who you know. Any type of mass-media is fodder for the have-nots, while the haves get their information from trustworthy sources through their in-group. The more addictive facebook, tiktok and twitter are, the bigger the premium is of being part of the right group. Whether the memes you consume are in print is entirely incidental. |
|
| ▲ | alexashka 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > Any type of mass-media is fodder for the have-nots Tautology. > The more addictive facebook, tiktok and twitter are, the bigger the premium is of being part of the right group There is no causal link here. It's been important to be at the right place (group) at the right time always. Social media being more or less addictive or existing at all changes this banality not. |
|
| ▲ | mandmandam 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > the haves get their information from trustworthy sources through their in-group Then why are their actions more harmful than any other class? I see them: * Starting proxy wars, fueling climate doubt, lobbying/destroying governments to allow every kind of degradation of every commons. * Paying people 6 or 7 figures to confuse and divide the people earning 5 or 6 figures. * Apparently utterly ignorant of their legacy, which will be one of murderous self-interest and absurd delusion. Do all their "trustworthy sources" feed their biases and class interests, their self-delusions, their greed? It's astounding how people can have all the facts and teachers in the world, while dodging genuine understanding of everything most important. |
| |
| ▲ | asdff 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Part of it is a sort of pascals wager being done, where it becomes rational and logical to play this game as it is for yourself however unsavory, because the incentives for playing it as such are high enough where people will always do it. Altruism towards the collective species fundamentally takes a backseat for individual and kin survival. There are plenty of species where the
mother will even eat any offspring who don’t flee them after birth soon enough because the incentives for the mother even out way that small affordance of altruism to kin. Biology is about entropy not emotions at the end of the day. | |
| ▲ | pjc50 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There's two things going on here: - things like the FT and the Bloomberg terminal continue to be reliable, because people are paying them to be reliable and are making decisions based on the news; but those are for the "financial middle class" who are still doing something that could be called a "job" - people like Musk pick news sources which confirm their biases, and are at risk of spiralling off into a Fox News hole of untruths, because they're too rich to be adversely affected by poor decisions or things that turn out not to be true. | | |
| ▲ | mandmandam 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | > things like the FT and the Bloomberg terminal continue to be reliable "Reliable" doing some heavy lifting here. Sports figures and statistics are reliable. Stock tickers are reliable. Neither will ever lie to you, but neither are they likely to teach you anything of real value. FT and Bloomberg are extremely biased toward class interest; in what they choose to cover, in how they cover it, etc. Did they ever speak out against torture, or illegal war? How much? Did they ever go into the long term advantages of Jill Stein's economic plans; or Bernie's? How much? The fact that we spent over $8 trillion in a murderous money laundering scheme should have been front page news every day for years. The costs of our incredible and historic inequality are rarely discussed, and if they are, it's in the most limp manner imaginable. The opportunity cost of all this fuckery, from a rational economic perspective, is mind blowing. The Overton Window is now looking onto bipartisan genocide, after decades of bipartisan illegal war and an extreme agenda of Islamophobia. > people like Musk pick news sources which confirm their biases People like Musk buy news sources to spread their biases. Same for Murdoch, Turner, Bezos, etc. | | |
| ▲ | seabass-labrax 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think the reason why the FT, among others, don't spend much space on human rights issues is because they are inherently transactional publications in nature. You have to pay to subscribe, and those who do expect something in return - I suspect that this is usually a sense of being 'in the know' on business matters. Obviously knowledge of Jill Stein's manifesto is not going to make its readers any money in the foreseeable future. I suppose I'm defending the FT in the sense that there is no alterior motive, I believe. Compare this to the tabloids, which don't charge for online access and make money by peddling particular business or political interests - mostly shady business, I think most would agree. I'd therefore trust FT on the facts, albeit probably not for wide coverage. | | |
| ▲ | mandmandam 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I suppose I'm defending the FT in the sense that there is no alterior motive, I believe No ulterior motive? I really don't know about that. They're better than most, because they generally tell the truth - a shockingly low bar - but it's a specific type of truth, as seen from a specific and very narrow window, from a deliberate vantage point. Always viewing the world from that specific window belies a motive, conscious or not, to maintain a highly destructive status quo. They are not seeing the forest for the trees, while writing factual and detailed reports on the least consequential tree bark facts. Which is fine, if tree bark facts are your bag, I guess - but I'm more concerned about the rapidly deteriorating forest. |
| |
| ▲ | mistermann 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > How much? Such an important (and often unpopular) followup question. |
|
| |
| ▲ | hmmm-i-wonder 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >Then why are their actions more harmful than any other class? I see them: Lets assume all people when given the opportunity will do what is in their own best interests first. The less power you have, the more working with others is in your own best interest. The more wealth you have, the more power you have and the less you _need_ to work with others to achieve what you want or need, so you have an increased ability to weigh what is best for you vs what is best for everyone. At some point the wealth/power split is so much that you can effectively stop caring about what everyone else wants and pursue what you want and what benefits you. So while they may have better information, they aren't incentivized to decisions that are less harmful to everyone. > Starting proxy wars, fueling climate doubt, lobbying/destroying governments to allow every kind of degradation of every commons. Paying people 6 or 7 figures to confuse and divide the people earning 5 or 6 figures. Apparently utterly ignorant of their legacy, which will be one of murderous self-interest and absurd delusion. All of those can be leveraged for profit if one is cynical and self-serving enough. Most of 'them' that fall into these categories know to some degree the actions they take are harmful to others, and frankly they don't care. Either in their own self-interest, or deluded interests of whatever group they identify with. | |
| ▲ | alexashka 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Maybe what's most important to them isn't what's most important to you. Have you contemplated such possibility? | | |
| ▲ | mandmandam 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, the ultra wealthy have different priorities to what I would call important. The yachts, deregulation, tacit (or not) support for torture, illegal wars, pollution, private jets, ostentatious displays of conspicuous and pointless wealth, etc, leave that in no doubt. Were you trying to say that maybe all that destruction in the pursuit of insatiable greed could be 'good' somehow? Like Zorg's little speech [0] about the benefits of destruction (the broken window fallacy)? 0 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkFAcFtBD48 | | |
| ▲ | alexashka 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > It's astounding how people can have all the facts and teachers in the world, while dodging genuine understanding of everything most important. You said they are dodging 'genuine understanding'. I am saying you aren't the final word on what 'genuine understanding of everything most important' is. In other words - you are using lots of words to say 'I want others to do more of the stuff I want them to do and less of the stuff they are doing because the stuff I want them to do is obviously good and the stuff they are doing is obviously less good'. Thing is, almost everyone thinks this. Given that almost everyone already thinks this way and the world isn't what you want it to be, maybe something about such a worldview is off. Or maybe we just need more of people like you in positions of power and you'll fix it :) Where have I heard that one before? |
|
| |
| ▲ | exe34 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | profit. they have the best information money can buy and they use it to make profit. Hanlon's razor doesn't take into account the fact that they have a perfect motive. | | |
| ▲ | mandmandam 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | > a perfect motive It comes across almost trite, but it's still perfectly relevant: > Canada [and The West], the most affluent of countries, operates on a depletion economy which leaves destruction in its wake. Your people are driven by a terrible sense of deficiency. When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you can’t eat money. - Alanis Obomsawin This isn't rare or hidden knowledge. Billions of people know this for a fact. Versions of this phrase go back well over a hundred years. Yet the media and political classes do everything they can to diminish such "sentiment" as "naive" and "childish" "wishful thinking"; with or without the tacit understanding that this is what their owners demand. | | |
| ▲ | cafard 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Will the last tree be cut? New England has much more three cover than it has a couple hundred years ago. | | |
| ▲ | mandmandam 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Will the last tree be cut? It's a metaphor (though in many parts of the world it's a simple fact); but yeah, it could be global some day. I wouldn't put it past us. We've lost countless species already. We've been abysmal to trees. If we were to keep losing forest at our current global rate we'd lose the last tree in 400-800 years (though tbf this is decelerating right now). New England has more tree cover than 200 years ago - great. Europe too. Is 200 years ago a good reference point though? Isn't that when we chopped like 80% of our forests down for industrialization? Anyway, so the centers of Empire are green(ish). How's the Amazon doing though? How's South-East Asia? Central Africa? And our new forests - are they old growth and diverse, or monoculture Sitka spruce? Organic, or doused with glyphosate? And then there's the climate, which we are fucking up faster than scientists predicted... Can trees adapt in time? ... Would trees survive nuclear holocaust? I'm not saying Bladerunner was a documentary. But we're on course for catastrophe, no doubt about it; and the relentless pursuit of ever more capital via externalized costs is why. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | ndjdjddjsjj 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Well just change your URL to something better, right. The curse is not the lack of information but the lack of will to change the channel from whatever feeds their (our!) biases. |
| |
| ▲ | mihaic 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | If drugs flood my community, you can't say the solution is simply "just don't do drugs, duh". If you put the burden on the population when everything in society works against them, it's not productive in any way. | | |
| ▲ | nverno 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > you can't say the solution is simply "just don't do drugs, duh" But that is obviously the solution at the individual level, and it is always productive to put the burden of solving your own problems on yourself like OP suggests. | | |
| ▲ | pjc50 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | But it's not an individual problem! Me not doing drugs doesn't prevent me from being impacted by people who do, and the same goes for people who consume poisoned information sources. | | |
| ▲ | nverno 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | I mean, it's both right? It's easier to work on fixing policy if you're not a drug addict reading poisoned info. | | |
| ▲ | mihaic 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Sure, it is both. And in this type of situations I think the more important one to tackle is the systemic one, so that putting the burden on the individual is made manageable. To give another analogy, if you want people to recycle, you need to create recycling stations in their area, and not force them to drive 50 kilometers to recycle a plastic bottle. That burden of infrastructure is on the government unfortunately in some part. | |
| ▲ | TeMPOraL 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The individual solution is insufficient in this case. Once a problem like this becomes a strong signal at the level of population statistics, it means there's a systemic cause that's stronger than most people's willpower. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | blackoil 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Society is flush with lots of drugs tobacco, alcohol, sugar, junk food, social media, reels... At society level, better laws and campaigns may work best but at individual level you'll get best ROI by focusing efforts on disciplining yourself and your family and friends. | |
| ▲ | ndjdjddjsjj 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | My main point is there isn't some Illuminati with access to good info you can't get for free. In the drug analogy I am saying most addicts know about rehab. The conspiricy isn't hiding all the NA groups. | | |
| ▲ | exceptione 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | You would have a better main point when you started to question how this accident could happen: Oh oopsie, I am the owner of highly popular media, that by accident does everything to not talk about subjects that are highly damaging for society, but that, if they would, would be highly detrimental to my and my business partners interests. Also, by accident, instead of bringing real investigative journalism looking at the big picture, my media brings a firehose of addictive, emotionial pulp of no relevance.
The problem is: we are naturally attracted to junk that tickles are emotional belief systems, for example some ideas we have about immigrants. It takes active THINKING to go against your gut feeling.How do you do that when you 1. were never taught to take that painful step of doubting your deepest held memes
2. were brainwashed by endless affirmation via infotainment
3. are living in an infotainment environment were half of your countrymen believe things like "the election was stolen"?
You are proposing to bank on someone already deeply burdened by debt. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | cess11 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| You really think the elites are generally better informed than the rest? They don't fall prey to stuff like celebrities, gossip media and so on? I haven't seen any sign that this is the case among politicians where I live, or among the few quite rich people I've looked into the lives of, mainly through their email and interviews. Compared to the leftists in my "in-group" they're generally very uncritical, poorly informed and pretty narcissistic. |
| |
| ▲ | Nevermark 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | "Elite" has so many meanings, it is near worthless without some tight context. Most people who are really good at something, and became successful for it, primarily became good by doing. Some of those people read and developed complex thought, and likely and rightly give great credit to that. But many others? Not so much. On the other hand, I think the quality (or the direction of quality) of a society as a whole has a very strong correlation with the percentage of people who read deeply and widely. I am not only surprised by how simplistic many people's views and reasoning are, but how unaware they are of the world. And how unaware they are that there are people around them that know so much more. They are not just myopic, they don't have a map, and are unaware other people have them and expand them. I had a desktop wallpaper of a visualization of a large part of the universe, the beautiful webbing and voids, where galaxies are pixels or less. An aquaintance asked what it was. When I told her, she stared at it like her brain had just crashed. She couldn't process, couldn't believe, the picture, the concept. People unfamiliar with that artifact is no big deal. But people not having anything to mentally connect it to when they encounter it is scary. | | |
| ▲ | cess11 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Power, like money, is mainly inherited. | | |
| ▲ | FredPret 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | This sounds more like a slogan, a belief, than a fact. It’s not true for the extreme top end: [0] Here’s a Yahoo Finance article citing several efforts to investigate inheritance vs self-made wealth in the upper middle class: [1] We keep electing new politicians and buying the latest and greatest thing. Technology keeps revolutionizing everything. This leads to a ton of churn at the top as incumbents are replaced. What may fool you though is that all successful people are similar in important ways (Anna Karenina principle). But they are not the same people. [0] https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/billionaires-self-made [1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/79-millionaires-self-made-les... | | |
| ▲ | latexr 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > It’s not true for the extreme top end Any extreme is, by definition, unusual. You don’t need to be a billionaire (which is what the articule you linked to focus on) to be considered powerful or wealthy. Tellingly, that articles notes that: > The proportion of those in the list who grew up poor or had little wealth remained constant at roughly 20 percent throughout the same period. Which suggests that inheriting power and money does make a difference in your chance of success. They continue: > Most individuals on the Forbes 400 list did not inherit the family business but rather made their own fortune. But one does not follow from the other. Inheriting a business is not the only way to have a leg up. If you’re well off you have the opportunity to risk going into some venture on your own and fail, because you have a safety net. Furthermore, your affluent family can and probably will make a difference in your business. I’m reminded of a piece of news a while back where a couple of rich kids were bragging they made their company successful “from scratch” but upon further inspection into it was revealed their customers were rich friends of their parents. | |
| ▲ | cess11 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There is no self-made wealth. You can't become wealthy without the labour of other people. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/apr/03/all-billion... The article you linked was a bit fuzzy, seems they counted people like Thiel and Musk as 'entrepreneurs' rather than inheritance because they didn't keep running a family company. But them being wealthy is absolutely connected to their families being privileged and the nasty, nasty crimes they profited from. | | |
| ▲ | FredPret 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | You know you’ve gone off the deep end when you call Musk an “entrepreneur” in quotes instead of what he is - a regular, if excellent, entrepreneur. Having a leg up due to coming from a well-off background invalidates nothing. These top entrepreneurs and politicians typically grew up upper-middle class or as members of the minor rich; they rise to positions of prominence from there. That’s fundamentally different from inheriting power even if you’re a dunce as kings once did. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | ninalanyon 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | But they are better informed about and better placed to exploit the things that are profitable. The rest is just background noise. | | |
| ▲ | cess11 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | My impression is that generally they surround themselves with people that are well informed and rely on them. |
|
|