politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I with you on a lot of this. I can't expect a free service of... Anyone. It's part of my zen. I can be delighted that things are available, that I can afford certain things but despite being 50, my experience has been Millennial and I am Not even where I "should be" at 30.
I like Dark Brandon and wish we saw him more often. When he fights for us, I'm more than pleased. The union wins are a celebration and I hope begin to set an expectation back to actual living wages.
And I want those vehicles to be green, with great batteries and range. That's only one piece of the puzzle, but it's my main direct carbon contribution and I WFH.
Appreciate the discussion. It's helpful.
Sure, and I'm with you there. It sounds like your values are in the right place, but marketing affects everyone, and nearly all of our media is owned by billionaires who have repeated the same narrative until we internalize it.
Electric cars and working from home are great, but they're not a solution - they're a compromise between reality and the status quo. Just like recycling - it's a way to sell personal responsibility, but it's entirely ineffective. They don't even pretend to recycle anymore, they just throw it into the dump, because it was never a solution to single use packaging, it was marketing.
We have to stop the carbon at a system level, by realigning incentives to make companies feel the hurt for the damage they do, and then deal with the consequences.
But back to the topic at hand...I guess if I had to sum it up, it's not about being entitled to free things.
It's about the deal being altered unilaterally in a very hostile way for short term profits. These things were free because that's how the numbers worked out... This isn't about profits or revenue, it's about investors
Look at unity - they killed their own company, and damaged an entire industry. And for what? They couldn't even answer basic questions about how their wild licensing scheme change would work. A small group who knew it was coming made a lot of money, but far more value was destroyed
YouTube is the same - the numbers have been worked out. This action makes ads worth less because it'll lower conversion, makes the experience worse for everyone, and shrinks the pie for the creators that make a living on the platform.
At the end of the day, this is logging companies cutting down the whole forest and putting themselves out of business. The investors make more money at first, which they can reinvest in the next thing. Meanwhile, we have a bunch of loggers out of a job, a destroyed forest, and people still need wood. They can move on to destroy another forest with a new company, and make even more money if they own the shipping too.
From the owners perspective, it's taking the lump sum instead of the annuity.
That's the issue here - companies are destroying value. It's extremely profitable for a small number of people, but the whole pie shrinks.
In the case of a marketplace (or platform) you get enshittification, in the case of an industry you have endless acquisitions and downsizing.
The key driving force is the same - it's late stage capitalism. We have to suppress these lose-lose situations systematically, because chopping down the forest and reinvesting is always the more profitable choice so long as it's on the table.
This kind of went all over the place because to me this is all about looking at misaligned incentives in our system, but there's a Enshittification essay that is an approachable starting point to break down the YouTube and Reddit issue we started with