This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
https://www.independent.co.uk/space/elon-musk-russell-brand-caroline-dinenage-mps-twitter-b2415346.html
https://twitter.com/CountDankulaTV/status/1704607541852844072/photo/1
I think that it is important. But I am at loss of words so I am not even sure where to begin to make it effortpost. It is outrageous, indefensible and at first I though it was satire.
Do think this is rogue action? (my guess no), Will there be punishment for the MP for overstepping greatly any boundaries? (also no).
It seems terrible in that allegations are enough to demonetize someone who earns income from the internet meaning their ability to fully defend themselves (legally and in court of public opinion) is curtailed.
I hope Dame Caroline is accused of something, loses her income streams as a result, cannot defined herself, and goes to prison for something of which she is innocent.
Edit: I don’t know if Brand is innocent, guilty, or somewhere in between. I do know that what Dame is doing is wrong.
If you want to nationalize a content hosting platform that no one is allowed to be kicked off of, or set up a decentralized Tor-alike platform with no moderation possible in principle, or etc., I am 100% in favor.
If we're going to use for-profit private companies as markets, then I don't know, the invisible hand of the market pretty much determines what happens, and a lot of consumers don't like people they think are probably rapists.
It seems just fundamentally incompatible to me to want these platforms to both be private for-profit enterprises governed by market forces, and to enshrine absolutist free-speech principles. I mean, it would be nice if that was something the market did on its own, but obviously it doesn't.
That's why we have a government with a constitution and a Bill of Rights, because those are the things that won't happen spontaneously if things are left to market forces alone.
Something that increasingly sticks in my craw is modern socprogs appealing to the "invisible hand of the market" whenever something like this happens - that is, when they're not accusing free markets of being corrupt, predatory, immoral, unsustainable, and demand more "ethical" dictats to be handed down from authorities.
If the accusations against Brand are made public, and his audience decides to give him 0 dollars the next morning, that is the invisible hand at work.
If a group of journalists, activists, and politicians bypass audience response and go straight to spooking management to cut him off, that is preempting feedback from the market. You are not letting the hand do its thing; you are calling God and demanding he intervene precisely because your faith in letting the market decide doesn't exist.
As if the decisions and personal preferences of Youtube, Rumble, Amazon, Steam constitute 'the market', and all the rabble like you and I don't count. As if those people (their CEOs or their beuraucratic layers that weigh in on these controversies) are what we are referring to when 'let the market decide' is invoked.
"Jeff Bezos doesnt like Confederate flags because racism, and now he has banned their merchandising on his storefront! See, you free-market right-wing capitalists? The market decided! You have literally nothing to complain about unless you're a hypocrite. Consumers are rejecting your racism."
That's been a decade-long refrain by now, and it has not gotten less idiotic or obfuscatory (by intention, I've come to believe). I'd wager that all these attempts to cut people off from their sources of income, to appeal directly to a storefront's management to have something taken off the shelf, to algorithmically suppress 'bad content' and 'bad people', are actually driven by fear. The fear that if you went hands-off and let the chips lie where they fell, progressives would have to face the truth that their shit is not as popular as they think it is, and oh gawd these peddlers of hate, sexism, racism, PUA-ism, COVID misinformation, election denialism might have more appeal than us! Or at least enough to make us sweat.
That must be psychically turbulent to experience, so best take steps to avoid that scenario. Just cut off some heads and say "Consumers were begging me to do it! Nothing unnatural occurred at all. Im just following the will of the people". And it really explains everything between the night of Trump's 2016 win and what we see today.
It kinds of sounds like you are implying that CEO's shouldn't try d to guess where the market is going and adjust their strategy ahead of time, they should wait until they've already lost a bunch of money and brand equity and then scramble to correct afterwards.
That doesn't seem like an efficient way to run a company, or a market.
Or, alternately, you are implying that large billion-dollar CEOs make their business decisions based on their personal moral ethics instead of what they think will make them the most money, to which I can only reply with an appropriate meme.
The market's not perfectly efficient, but it's more efficient than that. If there were some massive consumer demand for racism and accused rapists and so on and so forth, then all the right-wing social media startups that try to provide a platform for it wouldn't keep fizzling out into embarrassing clouds of nothing.
Are they anticipating where the market is going, or where the ADL, NYT, and advertisers are going? Of course any CEO is going to factor them into their business proceedings. But it leaves the very likely possibility that the CEO is not demonetizing people or terminating deals because he's worried about his userbase rebelling against him and jumping ship, but because he's worried about a hit piece, ad networks getting the willies, or being subjected to all sorts of extended, motivated muckraking if they decide otherwise. CEOs are also not a separate species from humans; they socialize, fret, have principles with about as much 'integrity' as anybody else, and are subjected to many of the same social pressures most other people deal with, even if their venues and peers are gilded upper-class. I don't think they mind losing some money if they already have a lot, somebody else is willing to cover their losses with ESG funds, or if they can sit in security with no viable competition. And this should go without saying, but they too can be stupid.
I contend that when people refer to the free market, they usually mean a decision or assessment gleamed by the aggregate, collective spending decisions of consumers en masse - if a plurality of citizens respond positively or negatively to a product, as expressed by how much money they threw at it, and if it's enough to keep production going. You are pointing to a small cadre of Lords and Tastemakers who either step in before the product hits shelves - or has them removed because Sprint Mobile doesn't like having a booth next to it or whatever - while using that same term. These are clearly very different things. And if you insist on using that framing with justifications such as "Well, of course CEO anticipations and decision making are part of the market!", that's... fine, I guess. I can't even say you're wrong on any technical level.
But be clear. Because this always comes off as a low-effort gotcha. If the stuff I want to reward or patron are being removed from the menu by executive or committee's political fiat, the free market did not operate as most people would understand it. And yet, many progs will insist it did, if only for the cynical retainment of the feel-good glow around "every voice must be heard" and "power to the people" sentiments you need to half-heartedly pay lip service to so people don't see what's really going on.
Remember that the Artist Formerly Known As Twitter is a (mostly) advertising-funded social network, so the advertisers are the customers. Russel Brand and his fanbase are the product. Recalling a possibly-contaminated product before confirming whether or not it really is contaminated is very normal commercial behaviour. Trying to get ahead of your customers by responding to a press campaign run by the media they read (which is the NYT for bigcorp marketing execs) is also normal corporate behaviour.
Musk is trying to move to a subscription model because he wants to run a social media network with free speech for right-wing American witches (but not left-wing investigative journalists or dissidents in the dictatorships where his other companies do business). He knows that the only people willing to advertise on media which is full of witches are alt-med and crypto scammers, and is trying to avoid that trap.
Distortion of media based on advertiser preferences is as old as media. "Married fathers are doofuses" predates modern feminism - it happened because the TV sitcoms where the meme originated were funded by adverts for packaged detergent (hence the term "soap opera") and the advertisers wanted to appeal to the women buying the detergent.
How would advertisers be "poisoned" by "consuming" Brand's fanbase?
Advertisers get publicly called out for advertising with 'problematic' people or groups pretty regularly. You can often see it happening on the front page of Reddit when there's some new scandal around someone who hasn't been fully demonetized yet.
That creates negative brand associations that are like hot coals in the face of any director of marketing for a large company. Avoiding and smoothing over shit like that is a large fraction of their job description.
One screencap of a Coke advertisement sitting above a Brand tweet on the left, with a screencap of a lurid accounting from an anonymous accuser on the right, is all it takes to make a 'Why is Coke supporting rapists?' meme that will reach the frontpage.
This will get X and angry letter from Coke, which they'd rather avoid.
And again, none of that is really good, but it is based on the fear of how normal consumers who see that meme will alter their purchasing decisions because of it. It's how the free market works in our particular hell world.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think my point here is that these have never, actually, been different things in practice.
Libertarian types talk about the invisible hand as though it were the abstract ideal case where every consumer has access to every possible product and perfect knowledge to make the best choice for themselves and products only ever succeed or fail based on those choices.
But they also invoke the invisible hand to justify real things that happened in real markets, which never, ever work like that.
Those two version of the term are inextricably confounded with each other already, at least in political discourse.
So it's an isolated demand for rigor if you point at the market responding to things you don't like and say 'that's not the invisible hand, there's real politik involved that's different from the ideal hypothetical case that term refers to!', then the next day invoke the invisible hand to justify some outcome of the market that you like.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link