The leaders who sell us and the world on these terrible interventions need to have a personal stake in their outcomes. If they want to nation-build, they should have to move themselves and their families to the new nation. If they want to topple a government, they should have to live in the capital afterwards. No more ruining the world and walking away rich afterwards.
The same goes for our business leaders, by the way. Personal results should align with the business and social results. There shouldn't be wealthy Purdue pharam execs or McKinsey consultants after oxycontin wrecked the health of Americans.
Much of it is assuredly going to organized crime, just as always when a lot of government money is moving around at once. The similarities between the bad loans bailed out during the Savings and Loan Crisis and the Financial Crisis have convinced me of that.
>You are describing the abridging private organizations' right to free speech
Many people and organizations have their free speech regulated because of the ability of speech to do harm (e.g. yelling "fire" in a crowded theater).
Saying something trite about rights is not an argument. these companies have a huge responsibility to our democracy, and treating them as if they're just another company is exactly what allows them to be so cynical about making decisions calculated to increase ad revenue even when they're harmful to democracy.
The market-based solution depends on assumptions about people acting "rationally," which isn't possible with such asymmetry of information between the parties involved (media companies and individuals wanting information), and so much inertia to keep using services like Facebook long after the user even likes the service. Some kind of regulatory pressure will be absolutely necessary.
I think there needs to be rules about transparency for media companies. In court you have to argue about and explain any disallowance of evidence; however in the court of public opinion, the media, no such rules apply.
Obviously you have to be careful when coming up with rules for government regulation of media, but the laissez faire thing we're doing now doesn't seem to be heading on a positive trendline.
Yeah but we can look at the evidence and evaluate it for ourselves using our critical thinking. We can look at the evidence and evaluate for ourselves whether people are lying to us. I have done that, and you OBVIOUSLY have not. Do you get it? You are just expressing bias again and again.
You are just spewing talking points and narrative, meanwhile Stone is putting shit like “anything to save the plan - Richard Nixon” in writing in his emails to co conspirators. You are not being smart. Just look at the evidence, they coordinated with Wikileaks and Russians and got caught. Saying “well others do it” is not a defense, Trump has loyal prosecutors who can make the case if they can.
There have been legal cases where convincing evidence has been presented, it’s well-documented. Your presumption that people aren’t looking at these things with suspicion is obnoxious and indicates that you are forming your opinion based on poor information and just not considering one side’s arguments at all because they’re “establishment or deep state.”
You're entirely comfortable with only being able to publish the lowest common denominator of things which will be comprehensible to everyone, at the risk of being automatically pulled from publication if an author steps too far from a style that's perfectly clear to the reader?
The same goes for our business leaders, by the way. Personal results should align with the business and social results. There shouldn't be wealthy Purdue pharam execs or McKinsey consultants after oxycontin wrecked the health of Americans.