> It feels to me like they don't feel like it's as useful as the application simple hard power.

They do feel that way, but I think they're wrong. Pervasive soft power is a lot better for building stable systems of oppression than more overt shows of force. They're either really bad at, or not interested in (probably both) building anything. I don't think this period of brutal oppression they're gearing up for is going to last very long. People in the US react very poorly to roving bands of State goons.

▲

red-iron-pine 2 hours ago | parent [-]

this isn't 1820 -- most people's perception is via social media, and failing that, legacy media.

which is why the big tech bros and the openAI execs donated money to Trump; "kiss the ring".

it's why Larry Ellison desperately wants to buy CBS.

recent posts show that 1/3 of the US electorate will still, in all likelihood, vote Republican, again, even after everything that has happened.

	▲	idle_zealot 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You're talking about that effective soft power, yes. There are some smarter authoritarians still maintaining it, but when things get overt it loses a lot of efficacy. We've swung from 1/2 to 1/3 support for Republicans, despite most people going about their lives more-or-less normally outside of one small city. So that swing is attributed to a failure of soft power. Check out opinions in Minneapolis to see what application of hard power looks like.
	▲	alpha_squared an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> it's why Larry Ellison desperately wants to buy CBS. I think this specific take is wrong. For example, Netflix doesn't want CNN/cable in the WB deal, so that's still up for grabs if Netflix acquires WB but Ellison still wants the whole thing (studio and cable). Extrapolating to CBS, it was Paramount the studio that Ellison was after, the network piece is just a dying artifact of a bygone era with a handy mouthpiece that has the veneer of credibility.