7 ms·

It leaves a bad taste in the mouth, doesn't it? Why haven't they taken action until now? People aren't children to be appeased by such gestures.

jajko 2y ago
You just described whole maga movement and some others. It works en masse, thats why trump won first time without investing heavily into marketing, telling folks what they wanted to hear
Arainach 2y ago
The request was made 2 years ago, not during election season. Building good regulations requires research, conversations with stakeholders, and other things which take time.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- AlecSchueler 2y ago
  Another poster pointed out that it was announced a few weeks before midterm elections.
TaylorAlexander 2y ago
Unfortunately according to many people in power we’re more like the “bewildered herd” of Walter Lippmann: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Opinion_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Opinion_(book)
- somenameforme 2y ago
  While I've not read that book, the synopsis from Wiki would suggest that the arguments put forth in there are almost entirely obsolete owing to the internet. In particular: --- The buying public: the "bewildered herd" (a term here borrowed from The Phantom Public) must pay to understand the unseen environment by the mass communications media. The irony is that although the public's opinion is important, it must pay for its acceptance. People will be selective and will buy the most factual media at the lowest price: "For a dollar, you may not even get an armful of candy, but for a dollar or less people expect reality/representations of truth to fall into their laps." The media have the social function of transmitting public affairs information and their business profit role of surviving in the market. Nature of news: people publish already-confirmed news that are thus less disputable. Officially-available public matters will constitute "the news" and unofficial (private) matters are unavailable, are less available, or are used as "issues" for propaganda. News truth and conclusion: the function of news is to signal an event, and that signalling, eventually, is a consequence of editorial selection and judgement; journalism creates and sows the seeds (news) that establish public opinion. --- Not only is access to information now completely free, but it's not even uncommon that a regular person is more well informed on any given topic than either the media or ostensibly highly informed political figures. See: Gell-Mann amnesia effect. [1] Outside of classification, we have all have access to, more or less, the same information. And, at this point, it's absolutely common to see high level political figures and the media both making plainly factually incorrect statements and implications, that are not only disputable but simply objectively wrong. If anything, the real bias in society seems to do more with people believing what they want to be true, instead of what is true. Of course the exact same bias also has clearly infected politicians, the media, and so on. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#Gell-Mann_amn...
  - riehwvfbk 2y ago
    Pretty sure the Internet has not only not made manufacture of consent obsolete, it has greatly aided it. The book already calls out the public wanting truth for a dollar. Now they can have a custom truth that caters to their biases for a fraction of a cent! However, that doesn't mean anything for the subtle message this "truth" carries: a TikTok video can still carry a call to action just as well as a newspaper article (see recent interest in Osama Bin Laden for an example).
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      Don't you think your own example contradicts your premise? People have radically different biases. And so manufacturing consent requires the elimination of dissenting views, yet the internet specifically enables those views to flourish. For instance I had absolutely no idea what you were talking about with regards to Bin Laden, yet 30 seconds later I was reading a letter he wrote that there have apparently been widespread efforts to try to censor. Manufacturing consent in this context would require the gradual but systematic elimination of every major platform and medium that might publish narratives contrary to the desired one, and that's simply not possible. And even if it were, that clearly artificial homogeneity would itself drive distrust. See the USSR where the government not only directly controlled literally every single medium for communication, but also strictly ideologically filtered for admittance (or exit) from the country. Nonetheless this led to widespread jokes like, "Why do we have two newspapers, Pravda (meaning truth) and Novesti (meaning news)? Well that's because there's no news in the truth, and no truth in the news." So we can even go one step further and say that to manufacture consent you need to not only eliminate all dissenting views, but you also need to somehow hide that from your public and make them believe that what they are reading is free to diverge from the official narrative. Chomsky, of course, hit on this exact nuance with his famous quote, "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum..." But now a days you can no longer limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, because with the internet you can find communities where basically any view, no matter how fringe, is the norm.
      - 2y ago
metamet 2y ago
We all prioritize things differently and I believe this process was started on October 6th, 2022 [1]. This is just one of many things the current administration has done over the last 3 years, though. [1] https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/07/biden-weed-executive-action-dea-00060978 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/07/biden-weed-executiv...
- somenameforme 2y ago
  So one month before midterm elections.
  - Garrrrrr 2y ago
    exactly
  - atoav 2y ago
    Statistically I'd expect more things to be done towards the end of any administrative period. First there is no way to finish thing in the beginning of their period, because that is where you get started, sharpen the tools, get your people in order etc. Then you start all kind of projects which may or may not take their time due to the complexity of the topics at hand. Then you finish some of them but the long running ones go on. Then the end nears and everybody realizes: "shit we need to wrap things up for real" and then whatever concerns may have been left are either fixed or ignored. But the point is: if there are open concerns you would be stupid to finalize a project earlier than you would have to. On top of that comes political calculus, but I work in an european University where elections don't matter that much and our senate would also have a tendency to finish most things towards the end of an administrative period.
CynicusRex 2y ago
“People aren't children to be appeased by such gestures.” Good one.
- vasco 2y ago
  It's an alternative way of writing "you can't fool people with populism", when... yes you can!
ttymck 2y ago
Have you met people?
moomoo11 2y ago
You have to keep some things in the bank to use in certain circumstances. It’s all a game. The sooner you realize it and that there is no option but to play the game, the better you and everyone else will be. And the game never ends and cannot be beaten. Any bs like “just don’t play the game bro” ok then go live on Mars and make a game there. Don’t drive on the roads, don’t use any utilities, and try to self exile.
atoav 2y ago
If you want to fix things you need to give parties with a track record¹ of improving things a significant majority. I like to see democracy as a system that in it's most basic mode of participation is more like a negative right: You don't wish for a thing and get it, instead you can prevent things you don't want from happening again. That is why track record should be much more important than promises. Nowadays the political debate in the US seems to be even beyond promises: it has become purely symbolic where they expect you to fill in the blanks. If you want more specific things from your democracy you have to invest more time, vote in local elections, maybe run yourself, write to representatives etc. This is especially the thing you should do if you are unhappy with all options. Earn your right to complain. ¹ what they say doesn't count at all — check their track record, laws they passed, how numbers developed during their last governing period in comparison to neighbouring countries etc.
yieldcrv 2y ago
Ironically, thats the juvenile take. The President can’t unilaterally do anything on this. Congress still doesn't have the votes - in either party. The courts couldn’t. Nor HHS, or AG/DOJ and the DEA. The latter two didn’t and dont harbor favorable views of rescheduling. The DEA process merely kickstarts another process, that is uncontested but slow. That doesn't preclude the reality of political machinations for someones remaining in office. But its disingenuous to suggest its bread and circuses only.
sph 2y ago
People are children that have a political memory that lasts exactly one term.
rumdonut 2y ago
They are though. It's that people tend to forget over time. I barely remember details of the last administration. A NYTimes article recently observed the same.

jajko 2y ago

You just described whole maga movement and some others. It works en masse, thats why trump won first time without investing heavily into marketing, telling folks what they wanted to hear

Arainach 2y ago

The request was made 2 years ago, not during election season. Building good regulations requires research, conversations with stakeholders, and other things which take time.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
AlecSchueler 2y ago
Another poster pointed out that it was announced a few weeks before midterm elections.

TaylorAlexander 2y ago

Unfortunately according to many people in power we’re more like the “bewildered herd” of Walter Lippmann: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Opinion_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Opinion_(book)

somenameforme 2y ago
While I've not read that book, the synopsis from Wiki would suggest that the arguments put forth in there are almost entirely obsolete owing to the internet. In particular: --- The buying public: the "bewildered herd" (a term here borrowed from The Phantom Public) must pay to understand the unseen environment by the mass communications media. The irony is that although the public's opinion is important, it must pay for its acceptance. People will be selective and will buy the most factual media at the lowest price: "For a dollar, you may not even get an armful of candy, but for a dollar or less people expect reality/representations of truth to fall into their laps." The media have the social function of transmitting public affairs information and their business profit role of surviving in the market. Nature of news: people publish already-confirmed news that are thus less disputable. Officially-available public matters will constitute "the news" and unofficial (private) matters are unavailable, are less available, or are used as "issues" for propaganda. News truth and conclusion: the function of news is to signal an event, and that signalling, eventually, is a consequence of editorial selection and judgement; journalism creates and sows the seeds (news) that establish public opinion. --- Not only is access to information now completely free, but it's not even uncommon that a regular person is more well informed on any given topic than either the media or ostensibly highly informed political figures. See: Gell-Mann amnesia effect. [1] Outside of classification, we have all have access to, more or less, the same information. And, at this point, it's absolutely common to see high level political figures and the media both making plainly factually incorrect statements and implications, that are not only disputable but simply objectively wrong. If anything, the real bias in society seems to do more with people believing what they want to be true, instead of what is true. Of course the exact same bias also has clearly infected politicians, the media, and so on. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#Gell-Mann_amn...
- riehwvfbk 2y ago
  Pretty sure the Internet has not only not made manufacture of consent obsolete, it has greatly aided it. The book already calls out the public wanting truth for a dollar. Now they can have a custom truth that caters to their biases for a fraction of a cent! However, that doesn't mean anything for the subtle message this "truth" carries: a TikTok video can still carry a call to action just as well as a newspaper article (see recent interest in Osama Bin Laden for an example).
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    Don't you think your own example contradicts your premise? People have radically different biases. And so manufacturing consent requires the elimination of dissenting views, yet the internet specifically enables those views to flourish. For instance I had absolutely no idea what you were talking about with regards to Bin Laden, yet 30 seconds later I was reading a letter he wrote that there have apparently been widespread efforts to try to censor. Manufacturing consent in this context would require the gradual but systematic elimination of every major platform and medium that might publish narratives contrary to the desired one, and that's simply not possible. And even if it were, that clearly artificial homogeneity would itself drive distrust. See the USSR where the government not only directly controlled literally every single medium for communication, but also strictly ideologically filtered for admittance (or exit) from the country. Nonetheless this led to widespread jokes like, "Why do we have two newspapers, Pravda (meaning truth) and Novesti (meaning news)? Well that's because there's no news in the truth, and no truth in the news." So we can even go one step further and say that to manufacture consent you need to not only eliminate all dissenting views, but you also need to somehow hide that from your public and make them believe that what they are reading is free to diverge from the official narrative. Chomsky, of course, hit on this exact nuance with his famous quote, "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum..." But now a days you can no longer limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, because with the internet you can find communities where basically any view, no matter how fringe, is the norm.
    - 2y ago

metamet 2y ago

We all prioritize things differently and I believe this process was started on October 6th, 2022 [1]. This is just one of many things the current administration has done over the last 3 years, though. [1] https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/07/biden-weed-executive-action-dea-00060978 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/07/biden-weed-executiv...

somenameforme 2y ago
So one month before midterm elections.
- Garrrrrr 2y ago
  exactly
- atoav 2y ago
  Statistically I'd expect more things to be done towards the end of any administrative period. First there is no way to finish thing in the beginning of their period, because that is where you get started, sharpen the tools, get your people in order etc. Then you start all kind of projects which may or may not take their time due to the complexity of the topics at hand. Then you finish some of them but the long running ones go on. Then the end nears and everybody realizes: "shit we need to wrap things up for real" and then whatever concerns may have been left are either fixed or ignored. But the point is: if there are open concerns you would be stupid to finalize a project earlier than you would have to. On top of that comes political calculus, but I work in an european University where elections don't matter that much and our senate would also have a tendency to finish most things towards the end of an administrative period.

CynicusRex 2y ago

“People aren't children to be appeased by such gestures.” Good one.

vasco 2y ago
It's an alternative way of writing "you can't fool people with populism", when... yes you can!

ttymck 2y ago

Have you met people?

moomoo11 2y ago

You have to keep some things in the bank to use in certain circumstances. It’s all a game. The sooner you realize it and that there is no option but to play the game, the better you and everyone else will be. And the game never ends and cannot be beaten. Any bs like “just don’t play the game bro” ok then go live on Mars and make a game there. Don’t drive on the roads, don’t use any utilities, and try to self exile.

atoav 2y ago

If you want to fix things you need to give parties with a track record¹ of improving things a significant majority. I like to see democracy as a system that in it's most basic mode of participation is more like a negative right: You don't wish for a thing and get it, instead you can prevent things you don't want from happening again. That is why track record should be much more important than promises. Nowadays the political debate in the US seems to be even beyond promises: it has become purely symbolic where they expect you to fill in the blanks. If you want more specific things from your democracy you have to invest more time, vote in local elections, maybe run yourself, write to representatives etc. This is especially the thing you should do if you are unhappy with all options. Earn your right to complain. ¹ what they say doesn't count at all — check their track record, laws they passed, how numbers developed during their last governing period in comparison to neighbouring countries etc.

yieldcrv 2y ago

Ironically, thats the juvenile take. The President can’t unilaterally do anything on this. Congress still doesn't have the votes - in either party. The courts couldn’t. Nor HHS, or AG/DOJ and the DEA. The latter two didn’t and dont harbor favorable views of rescheduling. The DEA process merely kickstarts another process, that is uncontested but slow. That doesn't preclude the reality of political machinations for someones remaining in office. But its disingenuous to suggest its bread and circuses only.

sph 2y ago

People are children that have a political memory that lasts exactly one term.

rumdonut 2y ago

They are though. It's that people tend to forget over time. I barely remember details of the last administration. A NYTimes article recently observed the same.