The real push toward oligarchy, in my opinion, is the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs FEC. The only available remedy at this point is for the American electorate to stop relying on political ads and make a decision on policy alignment alone (like the Founding Fathers did) - this is a totally unrealistic goal in today's polarized environment.
It seems the problem is we have a system that was born from the printing press and this system simply doesn't work in the age of the internet.
All that really holds it together are these religious sentiments about the inherent good of democracy. Sentiments that have almost nothing to do with lived experience at this point.
It seems to me because of the scaling properties, the internet finds an issue free equilibrium of "vote for me because the other person sucks."
Then it is just a race to get the most views on how much the opponent sucks.
Essentially what we have today is a free-for-all. Any corporation can spend unlimited amounts of money (commonly referred to as "dark money") to influence politics, with virtually no oversight (i.e. FEC reporting requirements). As an individual, my ability to fund political campaigns is limited to thresholds set at the local and federal level, but a billion dollar company like FTX can give millions of dollars to politicians who put forward favorable regulations. Billion dollar AI companies will control potential future regulation in a similar manner. I'm oversimplifying here, and added some helpful links for anyone interested:
- Two Challenges for Campaign Finance Disclosure After Citizens United and Doe v. Reed - https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol19/iss4/8/
- The Death of Non-Resident Contribution Limit Bans and the Birth of the New Small, Swing State - https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol28/iss4/4/
- Why Contribution Limits on a Hybrid PAC’s Independent-Expenditure Arm are Impermissible - https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol25/iss1/10/
Somehow my mind supplies "slouch" instead, probably because of a poem [0]:
> And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
> Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
[0] https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43290/the-second-comi...
Every time I read this poem it nails something.
Incredible sense of tension and dread.
More generally, predicting a disaster is sometimes an important step in ensuring it never occurs. Self-negating prophecies can have high utility.
You could argue it's the native X bias, but these were all the famous billionaires and multimillionaires who are top names in the SV space. All rooting for a Trump win, perhaps anticipating a quick Vance presidency.
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/7456/Who-will-win-t...
Though I will agree with you that he has a coin flip chance of being president, which is totally terrifying. Is that what it felt like to be in Germany with Hitler?
It is largely the sociopaths at the very very top that are Trump donors.
It was very good advice.
From what I heard Bezos interfered with Washington Post for (one of?) the first time to make them not post on endorsing a candidate for president (first time in 36 years).
What the actual reason behind it is is unsure, but they say they wanna "return to their roots". I honestly doubt it and expect its more political interest like to not be on Trumps "land in prison because radical marxist leftist" since he didn't do anything like this in the previous years.
"The Impact of Negative Political Advertisement on Voter Behaviour in Germany – an Experiment"
https://www.kas.de/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=f8324712...
"Negative campaigning has been a feature of German political campaigns from the very beginning of the Federal Republic... the central idea of this paper is to examine the considerable difference between negative campaigning in Germany compared with that in the US."
It seems like you're correct that German political ads are almost never US-style 'attack ads' because among Germans, "negative campaigning in Germany is much more risky for the attacker than the impact it may have on the attacked party"
The closest I can think of is somewhat vilifying the extreme ends of the political spectrum since most parties can agree on that (assuming you have more than like 5 parties).
- Don't vote for that guy he is a pedo
- Don't listen to this, he isn't a pedo, and also endorsed by local police department
Have you ever given money to the EFF? They're lobbyists. Call your represenatative? That's lobbying. Lobbying, i.e. constituents talking to electeds, is fundamental to democracy.
Yes. You're describing a policy disagreement between a polluter and everyone else. Pick any political system and you'll have the same divide. (Again, lobbying involves hiring someone to present the case to an elected. It's categorically distinct from giving to a PAC or campaign.)
> would bet that amoral corporate lobbying accounts for far more activity than good mission driven orgs like the EFF
I mean sure, for a given value of "good." Social policy lobbying tends to vastly outstrip commercial lobbying, in part because the latter is more focussed.
https://petition.theamericapac.org/
Even the Biden DOJ only warned him that it "might be illegal". They're stretching the law, trying to apply a law against paying people to register to vote, but Elon will pay people who are already registered so that's quite a stretch.
Mhmm, okay.
Apparently that comes from an older expression dating back at least to a 1960 quote in The New Yorker: "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."
(I'm not saying I endorse this view, I'm just trying to explain)
t. Kooky conspiracy theory collector
What alternative would you propose for candidates to get they're name out?
Is TikTok a platform? Reddit? HN?
Maybe it's still better than in the US? It's far from perfect.
Now... How many ads will 5 bucks buy? I'm pretty deeply in debt, but I could probably skip a meal in order to fully exercise my political freedom.
and to your question there, one example is to look at Japan. They give candidates an allotted minimum amount of time on TV for free. A candidate gets platformed purely by running. Not only that but we already do grass roots calling/texting/door-knocking campaigns... it is all definitely possible, but unlikely given that the current organization of elections heavily favors the entrenched two party system and the structures that back them (corporations, PACs, private interests, party structures etc...)
When our entire system requires billions to run and win an election, we are guaranteeing ourselves that we will continue to live in an Oligarchy.
I would be willing to try it in one of our laboratories-of-democracy, but my expectation is that a lot of people would run just for the free opportunity to self-promote. "Hi my name is Ron Popeil and I'm running for city council. I firmly believe that every homeowner deserves, nay, needs a Ronco food dehydrator!"