| ▲ | throwaw12 4 hours ago |
| > Civic institutions - the rule of law, universities, and a free press - are the
backbone of democratic life It probably was in 1850-1950s, but not in the world I live today. Press is not free - full of propaganda. I don't know any journalist today I can trust, I need to check their affiliations before reading the content, because they might be pushing the narrative of press owners or lobbies Rule of law? don't make me laugh, this sounds so funny, look what happened in Venezuela, US couldn't take its oil, so it was heavily sanctioned for so many years, then it still couldn't resist the urge to steal it, and just took the head of the state. Universities - do not want to say anything bad about universities, but recently they are also not good guys we can trust, remember Varsity Blues scandal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varsity_Blues_scandal - is this the backbone of democratic life? |
|
| ▲ | biophysboy 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The alternative to all of these institutions is currently social media, which is worse by any metric: accuracy, fairness, curiosity, etc. I am more optimistic about AI than this post simply because I think it is a better substitute than social media. In some ways, I think AI and institutions are symbiotic |
| |
| ▲ | qcnguy 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's better in all those metrics. Go on X. Claims are being fact checked and annotated in real time by an algorithm that finds cases where ideologically opposed people still agree on the fact check. People can summon a cutting edge LLM to evaluate claims on demand. There is almost no gatekeeping so discussions show every point of view, which is fair and curious. Compare to, I dunno, the BBC. The video you see might not even be real. If you're watching a conservative politician maybe 50 minutes were spliced out of the middle of a sentence and the splice was hidden. You hear only what they want you to hear and they gatekeep aggressively. Facts are not checked in real time by a distributed vote, LLMs are not on hand to double check their claims. AI and social media are working well together. The biggest problem is synthetic video. But TV news has that problem too, it turns out. Just because you hear someone say some words doesn't mean that was what they actually said. So they're doing equally badly in that regard. | | |
| ▲ | mattnewton 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Last time I went on X my feed which I curated from ML contributors and a few politicians had multiple white nationalist memes, and engagement slop. Fact checks frequently are added after millions of impressions. I am sure there are very smart well meaning people working on it but it certainly doesn’t feel better than the BBC to me. At least I know that’s state media of the UK and when something is published I see the same article as other people. | |
| ▲ | chrisjj 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Facts are not checked in real time by a distributed vote Nor could they be. We don't even have the tech for trustworthy electronic elections. | |
| ▲ | biophysboy 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | As I said, AI is better than social media. AI is trained on and references original sources, which makes it better than reading and believing random posts. | | | |
| ▲ | throwaw12 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | X is not a good representative to free speech. 1. It censors some topics. Just for fun, try to write something about Israel-Gaza, or try to praise Russia and compare the likes/views with your other posts and over the next week observe how these topics is impacting your overall reach even in other topics. 2. X amplifies your interests, which is not objectively true, so if you are interested in conspiracy or Middle East, it pushes you those topics, but others see different things. Although its showing you something you are interested in, in reality its isolating you in your bubble. | | |
| ▲ | qcnguy an hour ago | parent [-] | | 1. Are those topics being censored? You don't seem to know that is true, you're just making assumptions about what reach should be. They open sourced the ranking algorithm and just refreshed it - can you find any code that'd suppress these topics? 2. The media also amplifies people's interests which is why it focuses on bad news and celebrity gossip. How is this unique to social media? Why is it even bad? I wouldn't want to consume any form of media that deliberately showed me boring and irrelevant things. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | techblueberry 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Paradoxically, these institutions are probably the best they've ever been. We trusted them more 100 years ago because we didn't know better, but we're now letting perfect be the the enemy of good. Wise men once said: "In prison, I learned that everything in this world, including money, operates not on reality..." "But the perception of reality..." Our distrust of institutions is a prison of our own making. |
| |
| ▲ | mitthrowaway2 an hour ago | parent [-] | | I can't speak for the other institutions but I'd be shocked if the press, as an institution, is the best it's ever been. I know a lot of people who left that industry because of the way that the Internet and social media eroded the profitability of reporting while pushing on virality, articles were tuned to declining attention spans, outlets leaned more on centralized newswire services, and local reporting collapsed nearly to zero. | | |
| ▲ | NoGravitas 40 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I think the press, as an institution, was at its peak post-Watergate, and pre- ... something. I don't know when exactly the press began to decay; possibly with the rise of 24-hour cable news in the 1990s; maybe the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, maybe the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The media landscape was certainly severely decayed by 2003, and has not gotten any better. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | ranger207 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The press has always been full of propaganda, it's just that in the time period 1850-1950 there weren't any dissenting media outlets so it was impossible for anyone to recognize that there was anything different from the propaganda Every society is going to have problems. Democracy's benefit is that it allows those problems to be freely discussed and resolved |
|
| ▲ | raw_anon_1111 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The press has never been believable. How many innocent people were beat, framed and shot and the press just took the word of the police? Rappers in the 80s were talking about police brutality. But no one believed them until the Rodney King video in 1992. Now many don’t instinctively trust the police because everyone has a camera in their pocket and publish video on social media. On the other side of the coin, the press and both parties ignored what was going on in rural America until the rise of Trump |
|
| ▲ | mbesto 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If this is all true (I don't disagree) than what is or should be the backbone of democratic life? |
|
| ▲ | wongarsu 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They are (part of) the backbone of democratic life. But democratic life hasn't been doing well in the US in the last decades. The broken backbone is both cause and symptom of this in a vicious cycle |
|
| ▲ | freejazz 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Press is not free - full of propaganda Did you think that was different from 1850-1950? |
| |
| ▲ | zdc1 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | My (non-authoritative) understanding was that after Vietnam there was a more recognised need to control what the media published, resulting in Operation Mockingbird and such. However, given how centralised the media has always been, I could see it being influenced before this. Did you have any examples or reading to share? | | |
| ▲ | jcranmer 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I really shouldn't be so gobsmacked by people's ignorance of history, but it is astounding to me the number of replies here that seem to believe that the press really was well-behaved in this time period. When learning about the Spanish-American War, pretty much the most important bullet point covered in history class is the role of the press in essentially inventing the cause of the war, as exemplified by the infamous quote from a newspaper baron: "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war." The general term to look up is "yellow journalism." |
| |
| ▲ | throwaw12 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't think, but I feel like situation was slightly better for some reasons: * there were no internet, so local communities strived to inform things happening around more objectively. Later on, there were no need for local newspapers * capitalism was on the rise and on its infancy, but families with a single person working could afford some of the things (e.g. house, car) hence there were no urgent need to selling out all your principles * people relied on books to consume information, since books were difficult to publish and not easy to revert (like removing a blog post), people gave an attention to what they're producing in the form of books, hence consumers of those books were also slightly demanding in what to expect from other sources * less power of lobby groups * not too many super-rich / billionaires, who can just buy anything they want anytime, or ruin the careers of people going against them, hence people probably acted more freely. But again, can't tell exactly what happened at that time, but in my time press is not free. That's why I said "probably" | | |
| ▲ | marginalia_nu 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > * not too many super-rich / billionaires, who can just buy anything they want anytime, or ruin the careers of people going against them, hence people probably acted more freely. The provided timespan encompasses the 'gilded age' era, which saw some ridiculous wealth accumulation. Like J.P. Morgan personally bailed out as the US Treasury at one point. Much of antitrust law was implemented to prevent those sorts of robber baron business practices (explicitly targeting Rockefeller's Standard Oil), fairly successfully too. Until we more or less stopped enforcing them and now we're largely back where we started. | |
| ▲ | biophysboy 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think the 1876 election in the USA is an interesting case that counters this view. | |
| ▲ | ClarityJones 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I would disagree about capitalism being on the rise. Marx and his views grew after the 1850s and communist / socialist revolutions spread throughout Europe. There may have been more discussion of "capitalism" and an increase in industrialization, but "capital" had existed and operated for centuries before that. What changed was who owned the capital and how it was managed, specifically there has been a vast increase in central / government control. I think this centralization of authority over capital is what has allowed for the power of lobbying, etc. A billionaire could previously only control his farms, tenant farmers, etc. Now their reach is international, and they can influence the taxing / spending the occurs across the entire economy. Similarly, local communities were probably equally (likely far more) mislead by propaganda / lies. However, that influence tended to be more local and aligned with their own interests. The town paper may be full of lies, but the company that owned the town and the workers that lived there both wanted the town to succeed. | | |
| ▲ | mghackerlady 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | He predicted capitalisms fall, (which happened in the 1930s) but didn't predict that instead of the workers uniting and rising against the bourgeoisie that the bourgeoisie would just rebuild it and continue oppressing the masses | | |
| ▲ | ClarityJones 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Capital continued to function just fine through the 1930s. Crops still grew on land. Dams produced electricity. Factories produced cars. What exactly failed? | | |
| ▲ | NoGravitas 36 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Capitalism is subject to periodic crises; the Great Depression of the 30s beginning with the stock market crash of 1929 was the largest of those at the time it happened. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | YetAnotherNick 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, at the very least there wasn't strong polarization, so the return on propaganda content is lower. Now a newspaper risk losing their consumer more if they publish anything contrarian. [1]: https://www.vox.com/2015/4/23/8485443/polarization-congress-... | | |
| ▲ | b40d-48b2-979e 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | if they publish anything contrarian
Publishing something to the contrary of popular belief is not being contrarian. It is not a virtue to be contrarian and forcing a dichotomy for the sake of arguing with people. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | mrfumier 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Venezuela, US couldn't take its oil, so it was heavily sanctioned for so many years, then it still couldn't resist the urge to steal it, and just took the head of the state. Could you provide supporting evidence for your statement? |
|
| ▲ | mghackerlady 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| These are all supposed to be the backbone of democratic life, yes, but won't someone PLEASE think of the shareholders?!? |