Methodical Management
I mostly agree, I’d just like to clarify and emphasize a few things.
- it’d love to see Facebook broken up, it’d love to see platforms like Facebook classified as media outlets, it would be great if the fairness doctrine were brought back. And I think you know enough about my politics to know that I find reform good and abolition and radical rebuilding to be even better. I’d love it if the internet, from the physical infrastructure to content creation on through to the platforms and algorithms, were profoundly democratized and egalitarian.
- I didn’t mean to imply that social media, as it has existed in recent years, is the reason why racial attitudes got better. They got better despite Social Media.
- The point I am making is that Facebook is just a part of a whole constellation of cruelty, meanness, atomization, late capitalism and general rot just oozing out of every nearly every major and consequential institution in American life.
The conservative politics I used to have are, to my present self, radical and horrible and yet those views, I used to have, are totally mainstream in the halls of power and within the discourse. In some cases, my former worldview is, dare I say, hegemonic, especially when it comes to economics. The fact that a once in century pandemic cannot shake the political and media establishment out of its neoliberal mindset, even temporarily, shows me how diseased our institutions really are.
- You can say that one pundit, like Chuck Todd, is less powerful than a massive platform like Facebook, that’d be correct. If we compared all of legacy media to Facebook though, I’d say that legacy media has done more damage.
The MSM inspires powerful people to do terrible things such as: welfare “reform,” start wars in the Middle East, further deregulate financial markets, escalate the war on drugs, etc. Facebook inspires nobodies to say awful things and to sometimes do awful things.
There is a tendency to come down harder bad things, that relatively powerless individuals do, than we come down on bad things done by powerful people. The guy, who steals an ATM, is punished while the banker, who crashes the economy, is not. A person, who vandalized a mosque, is condemned (rightfully so) but a president who bombs majority Muslim countries is not. A person who uses the nword on Twitter might get banned and if it becomes a big enough story, that person might get fired. Meanwhile, a “Meet the Press” regular uses his platform to talk about a “culture of non work” in “our inner cities” and he becomes speaker of the house and later on becomes a highly paid lobbyist.
The MSM cheers this on and after the powerful do bad things, they rationalize elite bad behavior.
I think my main objection to the Atlantic article you posted is posted is not that it considers Facebook bad, it is bad. My main object is calling it a Doomsday Machine. I’d consider climate change, which was created by business and political elites with little push back from the MSM, to be the cause of world wide doom.
- All that said, I see your point that if you can have some good voices mixed in with the slew of bad voices, you are mitigating the worst effects of the bad voices. In that sense, the MSM is less bad compared to Facebook or YouTube or any other site like that. If the internet were more like Niketalk, things would be much better.
A far more responsible algorithm would see that a user is clicking on “SJW gets owned” and tag it as interested in public affairs and it’d throw in some suggested videos where someone explains the basics of women’s studies and queer studies. If you watch some Bill Burr videos, you’d get some Dave Chappell in your suggested videos. We have the technological capacity to put the best arguments in front of the mass of people and do it instantaneously and we ought to do so.