Basically, authoritarianism rears its ugly head in the US once again, across corporate, national, state, and local levels. The same general kind of gaming of the system which resulted in interstates dividing white from non-white neighborhoods is now maintaining the media status quo. On one side, it's the corporatism and Crony Capitalism the left traditionally complains about, now wielded by the Far Left as a non-governmental form of censorship. On the other side, it's legal and regulatory blocking of progress to maintain the status quo for old media and to use as leverage against the tech giants.
This is potentially deadly for US society. Until we once again have a healthy 5th estate which can reach the whole of society, the Fox-Newsification and the Gawker-ization of our news media is basically destroying what little actual discourse we have left.
What is my tribe accused of this time?
My peeps are trying to expand broadband, so I guess none of us got the memo.
Kicking out groups that don't hew to the party-line on YouTube. Not only the genuinely far-right, but also moderates, mainstream Republicans, and various sub-cultural enthusiasts.
As I referenced above, old-media interests and local interests oppose the expansion of broadband (as well as broadly defined Net Neutrality) in order to preserve an old-media status quo. Google Fiber, had it been successful, would have been a competitive force against this, destroying the barriers which keep Cable and old-media from being completely washed away. If "your peeps" had succeeded, I suspect "Adpocalypse" wouldn't have happened. YouTube and the like would have done something about ISIS videos, stopped around there, then told the mainstream corporate ad-money to just deal with the rest or go screw. As it is, the status-quo corporate money is being used as leverage against new media through YouTube.
Was the Far Left for or against Google Fiber?
More residential broadband (last mile) competition would have saved online advertising?
For. However they are against actual Free Speech unmolested by censorship from corporate giants, and they would not have such power on their side, had Google Fiber succeeded.
It would have let Tech kill off old media, or at least kill it off sooner, which would have changed the market power of old media's ad money.
> as well as broadly defined Net Neutrality
I don't really see how enforcing the decoupling of ISPs from other sectors hurts competition in the ISP space, but I'm interested in what am I missing, so if you could write out the argument in detail, that'd be great, thanks!
> As it is, the status-quo corporate money is being used as leverage against new media through YouTube.
Could you help with understanding this, maybe by providing some examples?
Authoritarians are now (disingenuously) using Libertarian arguments to justify corporatist non-state censorship.
I don't really see how enforcing the decoupling of ISPs from other sectors hurts competition in the ISP space
Does such a decoupling (in truth and in actual effect) necessarily follow from the former Net Neutrality regime under Obama, or from the elimination of that under Trump? I don't think such a decoupling in truth and in actual effect really follows from either.
Watch the video. Part and parcel of the thing which "Adpocalypse" is a part of, is a push from the Far-Left to re-label just about every political view to the right of Bernie Sanders to mainstream Republicans.
Also, Tim Pool, who became famous for covering Occupy, covers this general process in depth:
"Politico reports that 15 of the 18 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will hold a hearing on the Comcast deal on March 26th, have taken some form of contribution from Comcast."
"...Comcast has canvassed the two congressional panels that chiefly regulate cable, broadband and other telecom issues, donating to practically every lawmaker there — including Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) and Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)."
While Republicans have passed some egregious regulations of late, if you believe that money buys influence and favors - it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that representatives from both parties are responsible for the incredible lack of competition in broadband.
This is a prime example of the re-labeling of everything to the right of Bernie Sanders.
Here is another example of the re-labeling of everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders! Sorry, but I distinctly remember that the Democrats were the Left and the Republicans were the Right. You seem to be clearly interested in a dramatic shift to the Left. Thanks for being open about it.
(For what you are saying to make sense, you'd have to have Bernie Sanders smack dab in the center. Sorry, but what weird alternative universe do you live in?)
Perhaps this is true for "mainstream" politics for most of the past 100 years. I'm not so sure it applies to political activism on campus (i.e. Evergreen), the Alt-Right, Antifa, explicitly White Supremacist fringes, Redneck Revolution, &c.
It is bizarre to argue about left and right when it takes a microscope to differentiate the two.
Agreed, but as I point out above, the small difference between the traditional Democrat and Republican parties isn't the issue in 2018.
If you don't like "leftward shifts", when did you decide to vote Democrat?
As a child of immigrants, I was basically raised to vote Democrat. I showed up for the first primaries for Obama, noting the ham-fisted attempt of the local democratic secretary to get us all to incorrectly fill in the forms to disenfranchise us. I remember distinctly when basically no one would ever use the term "White Supremacist" north of the Mason Dixon line without being considered a conspiracy nutcase. I remember when the dismantling of due process and the wholesale labeling of the rural population as "deplorables" would've been considered stupidity from the mouth of a Democratic candidate. I remember when "safe spaces" on campus would've been immediately rejected as infantile nonsense by Democrats.
I remember when the kind of toxicity, fact-free imputation, and leaning on emotional images in we see in today's politics would have been called out by Democrats as an intellectually dishonest mode of operation. Not to say that politics were free of such nonsense and pollution, but back then, it was widely recognized as nonsense and pollution and not thought of as an intellectually and morally worthy activity.
The issue being discussed in this sub-thread is regulatory capture. It is disingenuous to blame that on unregulated capitalism, when in fact it is an issue of excess regulation.
Except this is a GOP agenda or predominantly Red/GOP local governments in the South and Midwest would be resisting it. They are the ones perpetuating it and at the State level they are preempting local ISPs in a variety of ways.
You are just accusing anything involving regulations as "Leftist" without acknowledging it is the standard banners of your own party that enable it.
I am not a Republican. I've always voted Democrat.
When your expectations are 180-deg out of whack, it's time to re-visit your world view and assumptions.
Meaningless gestures don't gain meaning just because we wish it were so.
That's not a good inference. Before I answer, let me ask you: Do you think the election of Trump is at all significant?
The subject of discussion was my political affiliation, not whether my votes were significant. So your sentence is a bit of a non-sequitur.
The significance of Trump's election, if any can be said to exist, is that from now on all of our chief executives will be reality TV stars. Is that progress?
You think you're being clever, asking all these questions before making any firm statement. The downvoters seem to have seen through the mask?
JFK was the first candidate to embrace Television. Perhaps Trump, being a part of the same lurid show, is the first candidate to realize how hollowed-out the media based on that technology has become.
Is that progress?
It's the classic creative destruction in the media.
You think you're being clever, asking all these questions before making any firm statement.
One of the best ways to judge someone is to see how they make decisions and predictions, and to observe on what information those are based upon.
The downvoters seem to have seen through the mask?
It's not possible to make judgements as above from the downvotes. It seems you should have noted that.
The Far-Left is the group which currently has enough power to attempt the silencing of others to the detriment of free speech, and get away with it on a widespread basis. It does so on a daily basis, with the help of corporate power.
The GOP does that as well and pretending its only one side is absurd on many levels.
Election shenanigans, not Free Speech per se.
and passing anti-speech laws at the state level exactly?
Those should also be fought, no matter who is doing it.
The lion's share of the mainstream media is biased to the left, and even at first many in the mainstream media gave a free pass to even to Antifa. It's well known that the GOP has an advantage in local politics. No one is pretending this isn't the case. However, the widespread conceit that the mainstream news is anywhere near unbiased still needs debunking. Badly. As in, society's survival is at stake levels of badly.
No, it's not. The lions share of media workers may have left-of-center leanings, but media firms aren't coops, so that doesn't actually matter; old media corporations are not owned and run by leftists, or even left-of-center-ists.
The mainstream media may be getting increasingly distant from the Republican Party by standing still (or, at least, moving to the right more slowly), politically, while the Republican Party continues the sprint to the far right that it's been doing since the moment the Democratic Party, led—dragged, really—by Bill Clinton, itself shifted right to form the center-right neoliberal consensus of the early 1990s.
(I call this response an “Overton Slingshot”, because while the tactical move to the right by Dems may have had short term electoral benefits for those left of center in getting slightly less conservative Democrats elected over Republicans—though whether it had any tactical value is itself highly debatable—it definitely was a long term disaster for them in the way it shifted the Overton Window.)
An analysis of the product indicates a clear bias. The left-leaning biased organizations far outnumber the right-biased ones.
since the moment the Democratic Party, led—dragged, really—by Bill Clinton, itself shifted right to form the center-right neoliberal consensus of the early 1990s.
In most western democracies, it's the center which needs to be allied with the administration in order to govern.
The shift isn't to the right. The failed embracing of Identity Politics and Intersectionality by Hillary was the final stage of a massive shift of the Democratic party in the center under Bill Clinton far to the left. Much of that was overseen by Obama.
Throwing out due process and freedom of speech -- individual rights -- is about as radical-left as you can get. In years past, such specific shifts would have been widely recognized as basically going as far left as Mao. It's basically throwing out the fundamental ideological basis of the United States. Now people are trying to convince people that this is "normal" and wanting such foundational individual rights is "shifting far right." Sorry, but anyone who remembers 10 years ago with a clear head can recognize this as a retcon of US history.
When your positions are so extreme the lion share of the population votes against them, its not hard to find boogeymen.
refusing to run special elections illegally
> “Governor Scott Walker’s refusal to hold special elections is an affront to representative democracy,” Holder said in a statement. “Forcing citizens to go more than a year without representation in the general Assembly is a plain violation of their rights, and we’re hopeful the court will act quickly to order the governor to hold elections.”
"The Legislature will be adjourned for 2018 before these seats could be filled in special elections."
Are you disputing the accuracy of that?
Also, you wrote "illegally"... and nothing in that article indicates illegality.