Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday October 14 2017, @12:34PM   Printer-friendly
from the follow-the-money dept.

[...] tech companies are under fire for creating problems instead of solving them. At the top of the list is Russian interference in last year's presidential election. Social media might have originally promised liberation, but it proved an even more useful tool for stoking anger. The manipulation was so efficient and so lacking in transparency that the companies themselves barely noticed it was happening.

The election is far from the only area of concern. Tech companies have accrued a tremendous amount of power and influence. Amazon determines how people shop, Google how they acquire knowledge, Facebook how they communicate. All of them are making decisions about who gets a digital megaphone and who should be unplugged from the web.

Their amount of concentrated authority resembles the divine right of kings, and is sparking a backlash that is still gathering force.

Is it that the tech companies are creating problems for society as a whole, or merely disrupting the status quo for the old Powers-That-Be?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Saturday October 14 2017, @02:10PM (69 children)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Saturday October 14 2017, @02:10PM (#582274) Journal

    Money concentration doesn't concern me. Power over communication methods that can critically influence our culture does.

    How do we separate the money from the communication methods?

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday October 14 2017, @02:18PM (64 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday October 14 2017, @02:18PM (#582278) Homepage Journal

    Money doesn't really have anything to do with it because money != power. Consider how many rich Republicans there are and then look at the mainstream media. Has all that money managed to get them anything remotely approaching an impartial hearing by the MSM?

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by srobert on Saturday October 14 2017, @02:55PM (40 children)

      by srobert (4803) on Saturday October 14 2017, @02:55PM (#582286)

      "Money != Power"
      What planet do you live on?

      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 14 2017, @03:07PM (7 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 14 2017, @03:07PM (#582291)

        Consider TMB's point and observed reality that republicans, rich and otherwise, are routinely mocked throughout the MSM, while similarly vapid progs are lauded.

        It doesn't matter that avowed members of political parties are all buckets of putrid slime - some slime is definitely venerated over other the slime in the MSM. Mere money does not seem to be the criteria that determines which slimeset is mocked.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 14 2017, @05:58PM (4 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 14 2017, @05:58PM (#582352)

          Consider TMB's point and observed reality that republicans, rich and otherwise, are routinely mocked throughout the MSM, while similarly vapid progs are lauded.

          Consider the observed reality that Republican congress members (reliably re-elected by Republican voters) spent eight years wasting time and money trying to see to it that millions of people would lose access to healthcare. Consider that they constantly inserted "poison pills" into bills that otherwise would have done some good. Consider their continuing (though failing, except for Trump, somewhat) quest to damage the healthcare system. Consider their ridiculous and harmful stands on religion in government, pollution, climate change, education and equal rights.

          If you actually step back and really think about these things, you will eventually realize that the reason that much of the media points at the Republican voters and their chosen representatives and speaks without respect or forgiveness of them is because the observed/objective reality is that "the Republicans" are, in fact, socially toxic and unworthy of much respect.

          There's a lot of mud that can be legitimately slung at the Democrats as well (and I'm quite ready to sling it - patriot act, drug war, various other incursions on liberties, constitutional erosion, pork of all manner and variety) but all of those things are Republican failures as well - the Republicans stand out as objectively worse than "the Democrats" at present.

          The republicans are, by turns, very much the party of the rich, the wanna-be rich, the xenophobic, the scientifically illiterate, the functionally illiterate, the racists, and the misogynists.

          These facts - and they are facts - are why much of the media is guilty only of calling a spade, a spade. They are, I think, concentrating on the Republicans because, as I said above, the Republicans are objectively worse at this point in time, and obviously so.

          Sometimes, when someone says something you don't like or appreciate, that does not mean it is not so. Those who cleave to the present Republican party for whatever plank or planks they find appealing, aren't going to like this. That's inevitable. They are also, at present anyway, unlikely to change their position - tribalism is very much in play, as is confirmation bias, selfishness and ego.

          TL;DR: the media is calling out the Republicans because they deserve it.

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday October 14 2017, @06:10PM (1 child)

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday October 14 2017, @06:10PM (#582358) Homepage Journal

            Incorrect TL;DR. Should have read "I hate Republicans because I blindly believe whatever the Democrats tell me to."

            There are legit reasons to hate most any politician. Because they're from the other party is not one of them.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday October 15 2017, @07:30AM

              by sjames (2882) on Sunday October 15 2017, @07:30AM (#582571) Journal

              Not necessarily. I have to agree that overall the GOP has been a destructive force dragging the country down for a number of years now. That doesn't mean I have any respect whatsoever for the Democrats or believe a word they say. Their only virtue is in not being quite as bad as the GOP. The party has made it quite clear that they will never allow the more virtuous elements to have real control over anything.

          • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 15 2017, @12:53AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 15 2017, @12:53AM (#582455)

            The republicans are, by turns, very much the party of the rich [...]

            Gratuitous and redundant description of what I referred to as "slime" aside, didn't you just also reiterate my - and TMB's - point that mere riches does not grant access to the most effective media megaphones?

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 15 2017, @03:26AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 15 2017, @03:26AM (#582499) Journal
            That is a good point about Obamacare. Whether deliberate or not, it requires near complete buy in by the Feds and states in order to avoid a lot of bad failure modes. That buy in didn't happen. So sure, we could blame the Republicans for not playing ball, or we could start talking about health care systems that don't require full cooperation from everyone in order to work.
        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday October 14 2017, @07:07PM (1 child)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday October 14 2017, @07:07PM (#582374)

          MSM like Fox news, talk radio, etc.? They and their "base" live in their own echo chambers, and disregard NPR, MSNBC and the rest just like the libtards disregard Rush Limbaugh.

          The world was a simpler place when everybody listened to Walter Cronkite (or a carbon copy of his script) 5 times a week. That was actually a relatively short period in history - we're getting back to listening to the news we want to hear and ignoring the rest.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 15 2017, @12:59AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 15 2017, @12:59AM (#582457)

            Calling "talk radio" "mainstream news" seems off-kilter to me.

            This in addition to ascribing an implied positive aspect to a nation listening to a single source of misinformation [aim.org], as opposed to lies and misinformation being the underlying problem.

            If your viewpoint rests in "unity at any cost" over honesty, I can safely disregard everything you have to say.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday October 14 2017, @03:09PM (31 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday October 14 2017, @03:09PM (#582293) Homepage Journal

        Earth. I just understand power dynamics better than you. Money means options, power means control. They go together like chocolate and peanut butter but they are not the same thing.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Saturday October 14 2017, @06:17PM (5 children)

          by fyngyrz (6567) on Saturday October 14 2017, @06:17PM (#582364) Journal

          Money means options, power means control. They go together like chocolate and peanut butter but they are not the same thing.

          Power is not money; but money is power. It is not infinite power, and sometimes it is power that must be very well understood to wield effectively, yet it is definitely power.

          Some things don't respond to power - again, this kind of power is not infinite. Propaganda, even well-funded propaganda, has severe weaknesses in any context where information flows relatively freely. So there are issues where attempts to sling the shite simply fail regardless of the individual or organization trying to sling it, or the financial leverage they put behind it. Trump, for instance, has huge power, but squanders it by constantly lying in such a way that he is bound to be caught, as well as being so profoundly inarticulate that he can be ridiculed with impunity by any high schooler. The governor of Kentucky just spouted some easily proven falsehoods about pot overdoses that turned his bully pulpit into a clown show. Etc.

          Some power comes from politics. That power is temporary, or at least, some of it is. If said power is wielded in certain ways, it can result in monetary gains. If wielded poorly, it can result in negative outcomes monetarily and otherwise. As always, power is generally a neutral thing until it is used. But using it doesn't mean things will go your way. Sometimes it just means you bring yourself to other people's attention more effectively (and that may mean you're more likely to get squashed.) Money... again, it's neutral until you use it.

          Saying "money is power" is wholly accurate, even though money is not a guarantee of results, particularly when managed poorly. Think of it like a gun. If you aim it at your target, it multiplies your power in a way that you'll likely find to be "good." If you aim it at your foot, it's still very much a multiplication of power, but you won't like the result if you fire the thing (cough, Trump, cough.)

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 15 2017, @10:56AM (3 children)

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday October 15 2017, @10:56AM (#582595) Homepage Journal

            All of which isn't really an argument, just another way of choosing to view power dynamics. Frankly, a less useful and correct way of choosing to view power dynamics. Money, while it can be exchanged to leverage temporary power, lends zero power by sitting quietly in your pocket; all it lends is a larger pool of possible solutions to any given problem.

            Consider Clinton vs. Trump. Clinton, had she won, would currently be getting damned near everything she ever wanted out of Congress while Trump can't even get those sharing the same party affiliation to stop arguing long enough to pass a bill. Both have tons of money but only one has access to useful power in the necessary context.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday October 19 2017, @11:09PM

              by fyngyrz (6567) on Thursday October 19 2017, @11:09PM (#584975) Journal

              So you missed this bit:

              Some things don't respond to power - again, this kind of power is not infinite. Propaganda, even well-funded propaganda, has severe weaknesses in any context where information flows relatively freely.

            • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday October 19 2017, @11:22PM (1 child)

              by fyngyrz (6567) on Thursday October 19 2017, @11:22PM (#584980) Journal

              Also:

              Money, while it can be exchanged to leverage temporary power, lends zero power by sitting quietly in your pocket;

              No. People will modify their actions simply because they know more money is available to the other party.

              Would you challenge a party to a court battle on an inconclusive issue when their pockets were deep and yours were not, knowing they can bring more lawyers, wear better suits, see that more time is spent on the golf course by "someone" with the judge, see to the judge's re-election and/or other interests, and his/her family's other interests, and otherwise indirectly influence the outcome? That's power - real power to influence others well before it has to be spent. If you do knowingly go to court against such opposition, you'd better be very, very sure that the issue will go in your favor. Otherwise, you saw the power, and you ran your head right into it anyway.

              Another low-hanging fruit: Those looking at someone for a prospective mate will change their evaluation based on financial status.

              Etc. Circumstances of similar import exist all over society.

              Simply having money can influence many types of outcomes. It doesn't always have to be spent. Which is not to say that spending it doesn't change outcomes; of course it may.

              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 19 2017, @11:38PM

                by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday October 19 2017, @11:38PM (#584991) Homepage Journal

                Another low-hanging fruit: Those looking at someone for a prospective mate will change their evaluation based on financial status.

                Granted but almost exclusively among women. Men overwhelmingly marry down or across. Women overwhelmingly marry up. It's an evolution thing.

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 15 2017, @11:43PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 15 2017, @11:43PM (#582808)

            "Saying "money is power" is wholly accurate"

            Being "wholly accurate" is a quest that 500 page dissertations rarely manage to find even remotely within their grasp, and you presume that your one phrase is something close?

            Bwah hah hah! Go the fuck back to twitter.
             

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Saturday October 14 2017, @07:09PM (21 children)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday October 14 2017, @07:09PM (#582375)

          You can have chocolate without peanut butter, and vice versa.

          Money is a requirement for power, and "power" without money exists only in fiction.

          There may not be a fixed exchange rate, but they definitely circulate through the same hands.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 15 2017, @01:02AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 15 2017, @01:02AM (#582459)

            Money is a requirement for power

            Consider penniless burglars who break into someone else's place, steal weapons, and then use those weapons to rob other people.

            Do they have money? No (certainly not initially).

            Do they have POWER? Of course - why else would victims comply?

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 15 2017, @03:29AM (19 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 15 2017, @03:29AM (#582501) Journal

            Money is a requirement for power, and "power" without money exists only in fiction.

            How much money did the Bolsheviks have when they took over Russia?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 15 2017, @03:57AM (14 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 15 2017, @03:57AM (#582513)

              How much money did Gandhi have when he threw the British out of India, with peaceful resistance?

              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday October 15 2017, @05:00AM (12 children)

                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday October 15 2017, @05:00AM (#582526)

                There's money in your pocket, then there's money in other people's hands available at your command - Ghandi had quite a bit of the latter, even if many of his followers had little or none.

                --
                🌻🌻 [google.com]
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 15 2017, @05:53AM (11 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 15 2017, @05:53AM (#582554) Journal

                  then there's money in other people's hands available at your command - Ghandi had quite a bit of the latter, even if many of his followers had little or none.

                  That's a ridiculously strained argument. It completely ignores that his opponents, most particularly, the government of the UK, had vastly more money at their disposal than his "quite a bit of the latter". What's the point of asserting that power needs money and then completely ignoring the numerous examples of financially asymmetric conflicts where the poorer, far less moneyed side won? After all, we all have money, even if somehow we were perfectly penniless, we could look through a few parking lots to find some. So why isn't that enough to take over the world?

                  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday October 15 2017, @12:33PM (10 children)

                    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday October 15 2017, @12:33PM (#582612)

                    Isn't this the classical revolution - French or otherwise? A handful of aristocrats vs a sea of peasants? You could even stretch it to fit the barbarians at the gates of Rome. At times like these "money" ceases to have value in big parts of society, so, sure, then money can't buy you anything, even your life if you're on the wrong side of the mob. The whole key there is in galvanizing the mob against the moneyed class, which has numerous examples in history - brief stretches in time covering what percentage of the history of the human condition? I'll put it at 1% or less, in the periods when there was something resembling a stable currency in circulation.

                    Get outside of the influence of money, in the animal world to a colony of sea lions on a beach, or an island rookery, or times of chaos in human society - then different rules apply, often starting from individual strength, tools held, and skill. Start organizing more than a few thousand individuals into a cohesive society and the concept of money emerges as a meaningful way for individuals that otherwise don't know each other to interact and exchange - and that's the beginning of money based power.

                    --
                    🌻🌻 [google.com]
                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 15 2017, @01:36PM (9 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 15 2017, @01:36PM (#582625) Journal
                      But that is the point. We don't have to go to the animal kingdom to find counterexamples. Human societies have already shown that money is not a necessary precondition for power. And yet we still have these platitudes about money = power.
                      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday October 15 2017, @10:13PM (8 children)

                        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday October 15 2017, @10:13PM (#582776)

                        I'd pretty much equate the fall of Rome and even the French Revolution to destruction of human society to animal, or even sub-animal levels. Unsustainable social change via low-tech murder.

                        Now, of course, with navies and air force and all, we have to have a functioning infrastructure to wage effective war on any significant scale - and that is run on money.

                        --
                        🌻🌻 [google.com]
                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 16 2017, @12:44PM (7 children)

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 16 2017, @12:44PM (#582969) Journal

                          and that is run on money.

                          Militaries are run on a lot of things. Money is handy militarily to simplify logistics in some ways, but you can't do anything else with it. You can't eat it. You can't burn it in internal combustion or jet engines. And you certainly can't shoot someone else with it. This is a continuation of the same delusion. Just because you can value power to some degree with money doesn't make money power, and it certainly doesn't make money a prerequisite for power.

                          This whole thing is just a rationalization for elevating wimpy businesses, "corporations" above the real sources of power. But maybe that's a consequence of the cognitive dissonance that comes from trying to mitigate the harm of a form of power by using a more dangerous form of power.

                          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday October 16 2017, @06:43PM (6 children)

                            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday October 16 2017, @06:43PM (#583091)

                            Again, when it hits the fan, money becomes worthless. That's why you need a protected rear area with a functioning economy where you can continue maintenance and production.

                            You might manage to equip a small militia with simple rifles and small boats without an infrastructure that runs on money, but if you want anything as fancy as a tank, or a bomber more advanced than a Sopwith Camel tossing hand-grenades over the side, you'd be breaking historical tradition to be able to build and stockpile those types of weapons without a functioning economy. Even the Romans got their swords and shields made using coin of the realm to control the labor.

                            I, for one, prefer the yoke of the mortgage and bi-weekly direct deposit to trucks that drive around with armed men who "draft" people off the street into the army. Both are sucky outgrowths of technological progress, but at least the illusion of free will can be attained for a couple of weeks a year under the wage-slave regime.

                            --
                            🌻🌻 [google.com]
                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 16 2017, @08:02PM (5 children)

                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 16 2017, @08:02PM (#583133) Journal

                              That's why you need a protected rear area with a functioning economy where you can continue maintenance and production.

                              Logistics and a functional economic aren't money (you are conflating the component of money with the whole). They aren't decisive either.

                              I can think of several wars where the losing side had the better logistics and functional economy, yet still lost (particularly, a number of colonial wars such as the two wars in Vietnam and the US Revolutionary War).

                              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday October 16 2017, @09:41PM (4 children)

                                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday October 16 2017, @09:41PM (#583178)

                                I can think of several wars where the losing side had the better logistics and functional economy

                                and serious political problems preventing them from focusing their full military power and potential on the conflict.

                                Tell you what, run a simulation of America vs Europe, start both sides at bows and arrows level of technology - but give America money, fungible and readily exchanged, and keep Europe on a bartering economy. Which side wins 500 years later? With money, America can concentrate population in cities and maintain those cities with diverse sources of food beyond the nearby fields - potentially preventing the collapse of the Mayan empire (would be nice if they'd go ahead and use the wheel in more than toys, too...) With the high density cities, they'd have more disease, and build resistance to that disease, so on first contact it would be the Europeans dying of something horrible, not the Americans. What do you think the weapons would look like on both sides? Remember, there's no exchange of gold or silver coin in Europe, so I'm guessing that blacksmiths wouldn't get much past sword making based on trade for goats and chickens.

                                --
                                🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 16 2017, @10:31PM (3 children)

                                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 16 2017, @10:31PM (#583196) Journal
                                  So what? It's not unique to money. You'll get similar results, if you limit one side's weapons, leadership, transportation, when they can fight, education systems, etc.
                                  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday October 16 2017, @11:00PM (2 children)

                                    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday October 16 2017, @11:00PM (#583206)

                                    The point is: without money, you do limit what a society can produce. How do you setup a supply chain to make something as complex as a tank without money? How do you attempt to control politics without money? Once you've shaken every hand in town, can you really reach out to the entire state or country without money to support the political campaign? Money is what takes you out of the Germanic barbarian king / Viking / North American Indian tribe stage into a larger organized unit. Genghis Khan had a fearsome army, but it was economics that held the Mongol empire together - for a time.

                                    --
                                    🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 17 2017, @05:56AM (1 child)

                                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 17 2017, @05:56AM (#583343) Journal

                                      The point is: without money, you do limit what a society can produce.

                                      And you can do that through a variety of means. Again, you are completely missing the point. The economic efficiencies introduced by money is just one of many critical aspects of creating power, military or otherwise. You are cherry picking this and assigning money artificial importance.

                                      How do you attempt to control politics without money?

                                      Quid pro quo. That's how much of it is done today as well.

                                      Genghis Khan had a fearsome army, but it was economics that held the Mongol empire together - for a time.

                                      Economics != money.

                                      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday October 17 2017, @12:09PM

                                        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday October 17 2017, @12:09PM (#583415)

                                        Quid pro quo. That's how much of it is done today as well.

                                        And how do you organize quid pro quo across an empire? In Rome, it was done with money. Today, Marco Rubio's vote was bought by paying a 2008 price for his home in 2012 (roughly speaking) - that was quid pro quo, but only really practical with money. If the issue had been a tax on goat herders, it would have been far more difficult for Rubio to explain the sudden appearance of 1000 goats on his land.

                                        --
                                        🌻🌻 [google.com]
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 15 2017, @05:01AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 15 2017, @05:01AM (#582527) Journal
                Or when the Mongols took over China. Or Christianity swept over Europe.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 15 2017, @03:57AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 15 2017, @03:57AM (#582514)

              Tons... You're not one of those people that think they do this shit for free, are you? And how else do you buy weapons and ammo?

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 15 2017, @05:15AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 15 2017, @05:15AM (#582535) Journal

                You're not one of those people that think they do this shit for free, are you?

                They would and did pay a considerable price to gain power. Russia is a big prize.

                And how else do you buy weapons and ammo?

                The Bolsheviks didn't buy the weapons needed to take over Russia. They either inherited them from existing military forces or made their own.

            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday October 15 2017, @05:06AM (1 child)

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday October 15 2017, @05:06AM (#582529)

              The Bolsheviks, founded by Vladimir Lenin and Alexander Bogdanov, were by 1905 a major organization consisting primarily of workers under a democratic internal hierarchy governed by the principle of democratic centralism, who considered themselves the leaders of the revolutionary working class of Russia.

              Sounds like quite a lot to me, $10 in each of 1 million hands is quite a bit more powerful than $1M in one person's hands.

              If you're going to reach into historical space-time where wealth wasn't measured in money (trashed economies, feudal systems, etc.) then you have to substitute money with "things of value" - including things as simple as food.

              --
              🌻🌻 [google.com]
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 15 2017, @05:25AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 15 2017, @05:25AM (#582545) Journal

                If you're going to reach into historical space-time where wealth wasn't measured in money

                That's moving the goal posts. Power is another valued thing. You've just moved the goal posts to make "money" mean anything of value.

                Sounds like quite a lot to me, $10 in each of 1 million hands is quite a bit more powerful than $1M in one person's hands.

                Powerful for what? Notice that this supposed scenario is quite irrelevant to the Bolsheviks. They weren't powerful due to some sort of imaginary distributed wealth. Instead a key aspect of the time that they were coming into power is that they destroyed wealth rather than created it. Their political system actually made them one of the poorer factions. Some of their opposition was relatively wealthy and also supported by wealthy countries like the UK and the US. Turns out you need more than money and weapons to have power (a lesson that I guess we'll just need to keep learning here on SN). The Bolsheviks had key aspect that was missing in the other factions - organization, unity, and viable, experienced military units.

        • (Score: 2) by unauthorized on Sunday October 15 2017, @05:05AM (2 children)

          by unauthorized (3776) on Sunday October 15 2017, @05:05AM (#582528)

          You don't understand shit. Power is the ability to create work. Money can be used to create work. Therefore money is power. QED

          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday October 15 2017, @05:09AM (1 child)

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday October 15 2017, @05:09AM (#582532)

            Semantics from a Physics nerd, gotta love it.

            I think where they may be missing the point is in individual vs group money and power. A lot of low-wealth people in a unified mob are, usually, quite a bit more powerful than a small group of wealthy. Until you let the wealthy use modern military force on their opponents, that really is a game changer.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
            • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday October 19 2017, @11:26PM

              by fyngyrz (6567) on Thursday October 19 2017, @11:26PM (#584984) Journal

              Military force (any violent leverage at all), however constituted, is also power.

              The one doesn't disqualify the other, right? Money is still power.

              I'm not really thinking anyone seriously suggests that money is the only power, just as money isn't infinite power or universally applicable power.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Saturday October 14 2017, @03:56PM (19 children)

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Saturday October 14 2017, @03:56PM (#582308) Homepage Journal

      Has all that money managed to get them anything remotely approaching an impartial hearing by the MSM?

      Actually, no. It hasn't gotten them an impartial hearing, it's gotten them a significant number of outlets that fawn over them, regardless of how ridiculous the messages they are propagating.

      But then, I guess you don't consider Fox, talk radio and the various right-wing newspapers that exist in most places to be mainstream. Which, although true, doesn't fit your world view. Will you accept reality, or will you continue glossing over those pesky things called facts?

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday October 14 2017, @04:14PM (18 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday October 14 2017, @04:14PM (#582317) Homepage Journal

        No, I really don't. Not when the vast majority of news outlets publish from a left-of-center position. The term "mainstream" has an actual meaning.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Saturday October 14 2017, @04:39PM (14 children)

          by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Saturday October 14 2017, @04:39PM (#582323) Homepage Journal

          No, I really don't. Not when the vast majority of news outlets publish from a right-of-center position. The term "mainstream" has an actual meaning.

          There. FTFY.

          What you call the "Left" in the US is, by and large, center-right corporatist, not left-of-center.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday October 14 2017, @06:11PM (13 children)

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday October 14 2017, @06:11PM (#582359) Homepage Journal

            I'm speaking for the US though, so...

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Saturday October 14 2017, @07:36PM (10 children)

              by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Saturday October 14 2017, @07:36PM (#582384) Homepage Journal

              I'm speaking for the US though, so...

              Guess what? So am I. Just because you want to call center-right corporatists like Chuck Schumer leftists doesn't make it so.

              I'm not sure why you continue to insist that anyone who doesn't share your beliefs must be a commie/socialist/evildoer bent on the destruction of these United States. As an American who believes strongly in the ideals upon which this country was founded, I take significant umbrage to that characterization.

              Rather than insisting on being the special snowflake who has the all the right answers, why not engage in reasonable discourse rather than just dismissing anyone who disagrees with you? If you did, you might find your reasoning, ideas and rhetorical skills to be a bit less fuzzy.

              Just sayin'.

              --
              No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 15 2017, @05:17AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 15 2017, @05:17AM (#582538)

                This is the typical blinkered crap from people who just think of the `left' in terms of the degree to which they approximate socialism. There are other left/right measures (and other political definitions that have no bearing on what you think of as left/right). Chuck Schumer (purports to) support labour over capital, special interests over general, poor people over rich, incremental collectivisation and curtailment of civil liberties in favour of centralisation of power. By most people's standards (not yours, of course, you're WAY too special for such common standards) that makes him solidly left, just with an american sheen.

                In other news, there's a special on right now for big, steaming mugs of get-over-yourself. Snowflake.

              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 15 2017, @10:59AM (8 children)

                by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday October 15 2017, @10:59AM (#582596) Homepage Journal

                Dude, you just finished saying left and right are relative to location so stop trying to argue the opposite now.

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                • (Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Sunday October 15 2017, @01:17PM (7 children)

                  by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Sunday October 15 2017, @01:17PM (#582623) Homepage Journal

                  I said nothing of the kind. Reread what I wrote.

                  In fact, go back and re-read my posting history. I've never changed what I said about the pretty far right (Rs) and center-right (Ds).

                  That hasn't changed an iota since before I came here.

                  --
                  No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 15 2017, @01:38PM (6 children)

                    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday October 15 2017, @01:38PM (#582626) Homepage Journal

                    Then you're wanting to use the international standard on the US. It's irrelevant both to the conversation and strictly national politics.

                    Pardon, you're wanting to use the cherry picked western European nations standard on the US. Internationally we are a far, far left nation if you consider all the nations of the world. Therefore I reject your statement entirely on the grounds that it is not relevant to any conversation except as a deception tactic.

                    --
                    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 15 2017, @03:34PM (1 child)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 15 2017, @03:34PM (#582640)

                      Eeech, TMB you are just incapable of backing down even slightly from any position. It is a bad trait to have, it is much more common for adaptability to be needed than a stubborn "my way or the highway" attitude. For all your talk of hating all politicians and being a fan of critical thinking you sure seem to display unusual loyalty towards Republicans and a tendency to vilify whoever disagrees with you.

                      Grow up.

                    • (Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Sunday October 15 2017, @09:07PM (3 children)

                      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Sunday October 15 2017, @09:07PM (#582764) Homepage Journal

                      You moved from claiming I'm wrong to complaining that I'm using the wrong yardsticks.

                      All without ever producing any evidence to support your wildly inaccurate claims that the right has no voice in the media and that the somewhat less reactionary center-right Ds are somehow heirs to Lenin and Marx. Please.

                      As for the US being less right-wing than most other countries, which ones are you referring to? No, really. I'm pretty confused. Just about *every* developed democracy except the US has socialized (or at least non-profit insurance companies required by law) healthcare (and generally better health outcomes too), much stronger safety nets, higher taxes, less income inequality, etc., etc., etc.

                      So what places are you referring to? Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Pakistan, China and Russia? Do you think we should be further right than those places?

                      Or are you referring to other places? Do tell.

                      --
                      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 15 2017, @10:26PM (2 children)

                        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday October 15 2017, @10:26PM (#582781) Homepage Journal

                        I've said you're twisting words to make them fit your statement instead of speaking a true statement to begin with. What the rest of the world thinks has zero bearing on US internal political alignments.

                        Like this:

                        Just about *every* developed democracy...

                        So, you've gone from comparing the US to the world and when called on the inaccuracy you've switched to a cherry picked group of western European nations. I flatly reject your comparison for that reason.

                        Start listing off all countries in your head. At least 2/3 of them are going to be to the right of the US. That puts us firmly in the middle of the left of the political spectrum worldwide. Which is entirely irrelevant because we were talking about internal US politics, so external definitions of any kind do not matter. At all.

                        You really should drop this argument. You're wrong and you know it.

                        --
                        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                        • (Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Sunday October 15 2017, @11:40PM (1 child)

                          by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Sunday October 15 2017, @11:40PM (#582806) Homepage Journal

                          Western Europeans? You mean like Japan? S. Korea? Australia?

                          And if you mean "left" to say that we're better and freer than Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Egypt and most other countries, then I agree.

                          You're twisting *my* words. Perhaps I wasn't clear WRT to the left to right *spectrum*. You say that there are many more authoritarian regimes than the United states.

                          I say that *on the political spectrum* the "right" in the US is very much on the right side of the political *spectrum* and that what you laughingly call the "left" in the US is also on the right side of the political spectrum.

                          Those two statements are not mutually exclusive.

                          I'd also assert that if the more reactionary portions of the R's had their way, we'd live in a place more like Saudi Arabia than Australia. More like China than Denmark.

                          I'll say it again and use small words so you'll be sure to understand, The number of places that are authoritarian hellholes doesn't change the political spectrum itself.

                          Here's some actual information about such things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum [wikipedia.org]

                          And here's an interesting application: https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016 [politicalcompass.org]

                          There won't be any surprise with you as to the results of this test: https://www.politicalcompass.org/test [politicalcompass.org]
                          Perhaps you might surprise yourself though.

                          --
                          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 16 2017, @12:53AM

                            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday October 16 2017, @12:53AM (#582849) Homepage Journal

                            Again, you move the goalposts to an irrelevant set. You're also wrong but let's leave that for now. International definitions of right and left are the wrong measure for internal comparisons. Period. This means your entire argument is pointless.

                            Now, back to you being wrong. You really, really need to study world levels of social spending if you believe even the right-wing of US politics is anywhere but solidly on the left of the international scale. Pay particular attention to us spending more on entitlements than anyone but Sweeden. Now if you were talking the liberty vs. authoritarian axis, that's an entirely different matter. Start listing off the nations of the world with freedom of speech, religion, the press, association, yadda-yadda-yadda enshrined in their constitution. It's going to be a very short list and it will include few if any of your favored European nations.

                            So, no, despite what your extreme-left professors taught you in college, the US is not a poor-hating, authoritarian hell hole. Not by any rational standard.

                            --
                            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday October 15 2017, @05:54AM (1 child)

              by maxwell demon (1608) on Sunday October 15 2017, @05:54AM (#582555) Journal

              I'm speaking for the US though

              Really? I didn't know that you are an US press officer. I always thought you speak just for yourself.

              --
              The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Saturday October 14 2017, @07:11PM (2 children)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday October 14 2017, @07:11PM (#582376)

          Not when the vast majority of news outlets publish from a left-of-center position. The term "mainstream" has an actual meaning.

          Fixation on the existence of opposing viewpoints, desire to suppress their voice... I'm sure there's a clinical term for that....

          As for "mainstream" - read the latest articles on cord cutting, and think about the implications.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 15 2017, @11:05AM (1 child)

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday October 15 2017, @11:05AM (#582599) Homepage Journal

            Fixation on the existence of opposing viewpoints, desire to suppress their voice... I'm sure there's a clinical term for that....

            Yeah, that's some quality mental gymnastics to take actual censorship that is actually happening and say I'm trying to censor them for calling them out on it. What color is the sky in your world? Nevermind, it's whatever color they tell you it is, of course.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 16 2017, @05:25PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 16 2017, @05:25PM (#583062)

              We have always been at war with Eastasia!

    • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday October 14 2017, @08:55PM (2 children)

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Saturday October 14 2017, @08:55PM (#582404) Journal

      money != power

      That's right. The power is in the exploitation of desire, the object is irrelevant.

      Has all that money managed to get them anything remotely approaching an impartial hearing by the MSM?

      Jeeze, man, they won the election. What more can you ask for?

      And how do you distinguish rich republicans from rich democrats? And furthermore, the last thing either side wants from mass media is an impartial hearing. They would be in jail under such circumstances. What they want and are getting is your attention and your vote, and your money. All acquired through mass media. Republicans and democrats continue to absolutely dominate the stage. The system works.

      --
      La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 15 2017, @01:13AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 15 2017, @01:13AM (#582464)

        Has all that money managed to get them anything remotely approaching an impartial hearing by the MSM?

        Jeeze, man, they won the election. What more can you ask for?

        Oh, maybe a news agency that reports information that isn't repeatedly violated by reality, such as "Hillary a shoe-in" and "Hillary 90%+ to win", muckraking hard against someone the establishment doesn't like and coming up repeatedly empty even after hurling every rumor as an indictment while simultaneously ignoring their pals' "Arkanacide" problem, etc., ad nauseum.

        the last thing either side wants from mass media is an impartial hearing. They would be in jail under such circumstances

        After a flying leap to this new topic, who would be in jail, and for what?

        How does any of that play into the issue of "money doesn't guarantee you access to present your viewpoints in the mainstream media (or equivalent)"?

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 15 2017, @05:39AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 15 2017, @05:39AM (#582549) Journal

        Has all that money managed to get them anything remotely approaching an impartial hearing by the MSM?

        Jeeze, man, they won the election. What more can you ask for?

        Last I checked, Clinton greatly outspent Trump, had the media on her side, and ran a more serious campaign. Still lost. As to the money going to the two big parties, there are other reasons for the correlation such as a better campaign tends to raise more funds (and the big parties tend to run far better campaigns than the small fry) or likely winners get the fair weather donors looking to save money by donating to the winner (a third party candidate that polls in low single digits isn't a destination for the sure thing donors).

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday October 14 2017, @03:42PM (3 children)

    by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Saturday October 14 2017, @03:42PM (#582304) Homepage

    Easy. Don't allow faggots and Jews to collect in large numbers within corporations.

    Actually, even better, kick all the Jews out of America. Israel is always welcoming to Jews, and so all Jews should go there and stay there.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by srobert on Saturday October 14 2017, @04:00PM (1 child)

      by srobert (4803) on Saturday October 14 2017, @04:00PM (#582309)

      I support your first amendment to express such stupidity.

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday October 14 2017, @07:13PM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday October 14 2017, @07:13PM (#582378)

        Absolutely, Israel is propped up with money sent there by Jews living overseas... it would never work, economically, if they all went back to the motherland permanently.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 14 2017, @06:02PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 14 2017, @06:02PM (#582353) Journal

      Ho-hum. Sometimes, your monologue on Jews gets tiresome. Once again - I've met real asshole Jews, and I've met other Jews who were as good as any men and women anywhere. As near as I can tell, Jews are just people. I'm far more worried about the lizard people. If you ever figure out how to identify lizard people reliably, get back to us with it. Mmm-kay?