May 26, 2018
So this was just a theoretical question at a public forum.
But I have no doubt that if Hilldawg thought she could, she would make a move to oust the Zucc.
Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg better watch out, as Hillary Clinton said she would like to be the company’s CEO because of its power as a media outlet.
Clinton was speaking at Harvard University, where she was awarded the Radcliffe Medal on Friday. Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey asked Clinton if she could be CEO of any company, what would she choose.
“Facebook,” Clinton quickly said. “I mean, I just want to add, it’s the biggest news platform in the world.”
“Most people in our country get their news, true or not, through Facebook,” she added.
“Now, Facebook is trying to take on some of the unexpected consequences of their business model and I for one hope they get it right, because it really is critical to our democracy that people get accurate information on which to make decisions.”
This argument is so fucking retarded and fake on the face of it.
If people cannot make a distinction between real and fake news, then how are they going to use ostensibly real news to make good decisions based upon?
You either have a free exchange of information or you have controlled information – the idea of an impartial arbiter of reality itself being capable of deciding what information is “accurate” and what is “fake” is nonsensical, and it because especially ridiculous when you find that it is only one side of the political divide that is calling for this kind of mass censorship.
The core idea of a universal suffrage democracy is that each and every individual in society is a completely conscious and aware agent capable of processing unlimited amounts of information and drawing accurate conclusions from it. That is the premise we have been presented with when universal suffrage democracy – something which had never existed in history, by the way – was sold to us as the pinnacle of freedom and justice.
This system is so perfectly ideal, we have been told, that it must be exported to every country in the world, and if a country does not have “democracy,” than it does not have “freedom.”
And though we do not know exactly what “freedom” means – in fact, we don’t even vaguely know what it means, but it apparently does not mean free access to information – we do know for an absolute fact that it is the most important thing like, ever.
And people who do not have “freedom” – that is, universal suffrage democracy – are “oppressed” and thus must be “liberated.”
But if Hillary Clinton is saying that the average person is incapable of determining truth from falsehood when given unlimited access to information, then she is admitting that the underlying premise of universal suffrage democracy is false, and thus the entire system is illegitimate.
That actually is my own view. Even well outside of considerations of race and gender, the idea that every person in society is capable of being informed and intelligent enough to decide how society is run is so idiotic on the face of it that it is unfathomable to me that any person ever thought this was a good idea.
The core ideal of universal suffrage democracy is that the masses are easily manipulated by the ruling elite class. What Hillary and others calling for censorship of the internet are saying is that the internet has made it difficult for the ruling class to manipulate the masses, and thus their own system is backfiring on them.
Because when they invented this system, the idea of a free flow of unlimited amounts of information was not considered. And they only realized the gravity of the situation when, against the will of the entire controlled establishment media, Donald Trump won the 2016 Presidential election.
The internet took away their monopoly on information, so then it came down to “who can put out the best propaganda?”
This is a situation which is untenable for them, because the concept of a competitor took them by surprise.
Thus, the “fake news” meme.
“Democracy can’t work if people have unfettered access to unlimited amounts of unfiltered information.”
The whole thing is so transparent that it is mind-boggling.
The right-wing will often attack the concept of “democracy” as being anti-freedom and anti-human, a system that allows the elite to have completely unchecked power over society.
The critique is obviously correct, but what they are specifically deferring to is not “democracy” as a general concept, but specifically the concept of universal suffrage democracy. Typically, only a certain type of person was allowed to vote in a traditional democratic society.
The Founding Fathers conceived America as New Rome, and thus included democratic elements in the Constitution.
In the United States as it was founded, only literate, land-owning white males were allowed to vote. This is fine. We didn’t have any problems then. Because if a man owns land, he has proven that he is of worth to society, is of a high enough agency, and has enough of a stake in the direction of society that he should be able to have some say in how that society is run.
However, with the 15th Amendment in 1870 – almost a century after the country was founded – the right to vote was granted to all white men, regardless of whether or not they’d proved their worth to society by collecting a certain amount of wealth.
This paved the way for the allowing of blacks and then women to vote, because it removed the idea that you should have to prove something before being given a right to participate in government.
Now we just have a complete circus, where the main competition between politicians is not really even over ideas, but how much they are able to motivate people to take the time out of their day to go stand in line and vote for their supposed interests.
The entire situation is so absurd that saying that this raunchous mass of COMPLETELY AUTONOMOUS INDIVIDUALS has to have their access to information controlled – in the manner of parental controls on a television set – in order to make the “right” decisions about how they vote.