this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
555 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

59676 readers
3237 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Chronographs@lemmy.zip 17 points 1 month ago (4 children)

This is nice and all but any solution requires a government captured by capital to work against capital feels as likely to work as thoughts and prayers.

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 39 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Better than completely allowing capital to do whatever it wants without even attempting to push back.

[–] DJDarren@thelemmy.club 10 points 1 month ago

But what if some change in the right direction doesn't fix everything immediately? Then what?

May as well just not bother.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

But then our first problem is the influence of capital, not a lack of ideas for what to do if that influence wasn't there.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 month ago

Yup. All of these "solutions" that sound original are known. The reason we don't apply them isn't because we don't know how to solve these issues, it's because capital has pulled the handbrake. This is the problem we have to solve. All the other problems fall downstream and will magically start getting solved if we can release the handbrake. If we're not talking about how to reduce regulatory capture, we're not taking about real solutions.

[–] bastion@feddit.nl 1 points 1 month ago

It's not that we had enough power to guarantee we would make an impact. It's that we had enough power that we should have tried.

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I'm inclined to agree. I think the best path through would be to focus on laws that benefit multiple minor players that have a seat at the table.

Antitrust laws in general are a good example. These function at the direct expense of big monopolies, but are exactly what companies need if they want in on what was monopolized. And in the case of breaking a monopoly down, the resulting "baby" companies given more power, growth opportunity, hiring opportunities (job growth) and money making potential than the parent. This can also spur economic growth for all the fat cats out there by creating many new investment and hiring potentials. Overall, if you can get past the monopoly itself (read: take the ball away from your billionaire of choice), everyone else involved stands to benefit.

There may be other strategies, but I can't think of any right now. I think the key is to tip the scale in favor of more favorable outcomes, then repeat that a few more times, achieving incremental progress along the way. Doctorow outlines the ideal end state for all this, but it's up to everyone else to figure out how to get there.

While I don't like the idea of embracing capital to improve things, the whole system is currently run this way. Standing with other monied interests that are aligned with the same goal might be the only way to go.