Here you massively underestimate the power of disinformation to exacerbate grievances whether they be real or imagined. Back in the day, when the internet first kicked off, I really believed it was going to be a power for good in the world. Reality check. It has turned out to be very much a double edged sword. Disinformation pushed often on social media platforms has made matters a great deal worse, particularly in relation to MAGA, to name just one example.
Populism has been around a lot longer than social media.
I am not reducing anything here and it is naive of you to think that I am. I am well aware of the propaganda used and perfected by the Nazis based largely on the work of Edward Bernays. Did you even glance at the blog I talked about in my post? It puts forward very clearly the contention that had Meta/Facebook stepped up to the plate and taken moderation seriously then the genocide that took place in Myanmar would likely have not taken place at all or at the least been greatly reduced. Instead all they were interested in was was entirely the opposite, getting on the phone to ask why the net was down; otherwise they were unreachable. This of course is an extreme example but it serves to illustrate the power of social media in the present day and this. I contend in my follow-up post is an underestimation of the reach of social media in the present day. It is ubiquitous, it is everywhere and the propaganda tools that were used in the early 20th century are being applied to great effect with it.
Rather than repeatedly asking the same question, why dont you just give your answer to it.
I already have given my view. It doesn't require an essay, especially when it's already obvious how things in the US are going to unfold.
Like this you mean?
teqniq gave one of the reasons they felt Trump has become so popular and you pretend that they believe it's "all about people being lied to on the internet". An honest answer would have started something like "Yes that is part of it, but the conditions existed before that ..."
you mean this
so no solutions are in view. can we move on now then instead of sniping about posters on here being centrists and enablers etc
I haven't menioned the words centrist or enabler.
I don't see where I've called anybody on here a centrist or enabler, however.Indeed you haven't
Well yes, but I was responding to one of your posts that was saying something on the subject after you'd previously stated that you've said all you wanted on the subject. And you've accused people of wanting to get back to the centre ground (whatever that might be) which does seem a tad like accusing them of being centrists.
I can't help it if people keep quoting me. From now on I won't bother replying.
Yay!
Yeah, you can see signs of this in most news coming from the US. The house of representatives for instance has always had periods of being 'flaky' but the level of dysfunction currently on display is truly special. Wealthy people have always had influence over the politics of the place but the current kind of overt and deliberate machinations against the very system of governance over there by powerful billionaires is noteworthy. One-on-one crimes like murder are apprently in decline but mass killings are on an increasing trajectory (both in frequency and resulting deaths). The types of overt Nazism on display that a generation ago, would have resulted in these people getting the living shit kicked out of them on a regular basis now just seem to be treated as just 'background nuts' rather than dangerous arseholes who need to be emphatically dealt with. And so on and on....
You started this particular conversation by saying that people on the thread are just getting at Trump with no attempt to examine why he's been so popular, which I thought immediately was a fair point.
Sadly, unless you are politically motivated and sitting atop a literal mountain of cash, there's not much that can be done to directly affect the trajectory I fear. That's not me being a miserablist or fatalist btw. It has been said by many others both on these boards and outside that the left as a whole took their eye off the ball by focusing too much on internecine bickering and not spending enough time doing the work. Although I think this is partially true, it's also true that the right has always been better funded than the left and has always had backing from institutions with considerable 'skin in the game' and massive interests in maintaining the status quo and making sure that the poors don't get too uppity. You only have to look at the types of organisations that lean right or have a considerable amount of hard-authoritarian right and hard-libertarian right sympathisers in their number to see the extent of the forces arrayed against a left alternative: the press, the organs of state, the christian church, other religions and religious sects, wellness twats, new-agers, the police, the military, businesses large and small, banks, hedge funds, resource extraction companies, auto and aerospace manufacturers, tech companies, massive high net worth individuals, royalty -the list is almost endless.
I've read the blog piece, I've also read a lot of stuff on populism over the last few years. And to place social media (or even propaganda more generally) as the fundamental driving factor is ahistoric. Both in the long term sense - clearly populist groups existed long, long before social media - and in the medium, short term - for example the FN in France, BNP in UK (for just two examples) were starting their growth before social media really took off.
www.semafor.com
