373
FTC's rule banning fake online reviews goes into effect
(abcnews.go.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2024
373 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
60123 readers
2711 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Oh look, Lina Khan bringing the heat again. My god, she's like a bureaucratic superhero. Lemmy loves bagging on capitalism, but capitalism ain't the problem. The problem is our spineless, bought and paid for government. Action like this can turn us around, wrest power away from the monopolists.
Losing her to a Trump administration is yet another horror we may face.
People who vote for Trump like to blame democrats and woke people, but what they really and truly hate is capitalism. They just can't see that what makes them unhappy is the natural effect of a fully capitalistic society.
Well, I suppose you have a genius economic system where the haves don't take advantage of the have nots. Tell us all about it!
(FFS, do they not teach history in schools any more?!)
Communism envisions a society where there are no haves and have nots (classless) and socialism is put forward as the economic system that will get us there eventually. There are criticisms to be made about the method but the vision is good.
Capitalism does what you're doing here, snarkily talk down to anyone who dares suggest such a society might be possible and is worth working towards, and puts forward instead that there must be haves taking advantage of have nots for society to function and that no other way is possible.
Genuine question, what happens when the populace loses motivation to contribute? Such as the “lie down” movement (yes I understand China is not the best example).
These kinds of movements are a consequence of over-exploitation. The "lie down" movement - also "let it rot" - is similar to the "quiet quitting" movement in the US. People will not be motivated to contribute when they are struggling and do not see any benefit to trying harder. If these people were fairly compensated for their labor and had greater autonomy over how to contribute they would not lose motivation. Alienation from the result of their labor is also a huge contributor; feeling rewarded for your work can be as simple as seeing the result (a teacher seeing their students find their passions, for example).
I guess my point is what happens when they genuinely just want to exist for a year and nothing else. I get this is not a realistic question. Just curious of the outcome there
If that's something they need then that's something they should get. No one will be happy doing nothing forever, in that year they will likely find something that makes them happy, especially if opportunities are made available to them.
There's far more to motivation and more pay can actually be detrimental depending on the sort of work. Sounds stupidly counter-intuitive doesn't it? Take a look, this really opened my eyes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
That video really hit home for me. I looked back over all the varied jobs I had and the places I was most happy gave me what the video talks about. My last job was double the pay and benefits of the one before and I haven't been less motivated.
Seriously, give it 10-minutes. At one point I was thinking, "Damn! He's talking about Linux!"
Such a society is not possible because we're human beings, warts and all. FFS, teach monkeys how to use money and they invent prostitution.
There will always be people who look to dominate others for personal gain. Also, the "tragedy of the commons" is well known fact of life. If an economic system isn't taking human behavior into account, it's useless, hippie bullshit.
That's why capitalism worked so well for so long. Now that we're into the later stages, it's up to government to reign it in. When I was a kid in the 70s and 80s, a bad/immoral reputation could easily tank a company. Now no one gives a shit, keeps buying and buying. Fine. Time for the government to step up, but our representatives are bought and paid for by the very organizations they should be regulating. And that last is going to be a feature of any economic system.
Maybe it's already too late? Seems like it, but then I see people like Lina Kahn taking on Wall Street and Silicon Valley, and I have hope.
Put those monkeys underwater and you might conclude that drowning is in their nature. I know of the studies you're referencing regarding monkeys being taught to use money and I'm aware that they were done with monkeys in captivity. In the same vein, the debunked study about "alpha" wolves was done on wolves in captivity and observations of wolves in their natural environment countered the study's findings. Our actions are a result of the context and material conditions that we are in.
People dominate others for personal gain because they live in a system that rewards them for doing so. Place those people in a system that rewards them for helping others and the very same selfish impulse will make them saints. The "tragedy of the commons" is enlightenment era defeatist bullshit. The commons existed and were managed by people for thousands of years before capitalists enclosed them and dared to claim that it was the inevitable result of human nature.
Capitalism is why our govt is bought and paid for. They are inextricable.
Corruption will exist in every government, regardless of economic system. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Try not to fixate on the corruption- that's essentially a smokescreen; the whole point is that the system itself is designed to concentrate wealth.
Since we're bandying about well-trodden quotes, how about this one:
"A bad system will beat a good person every time." -E. Deming
Well what's an ethical alternative? Central planning?
How about the opposite? A decentralized system, avoiding concentrating power in any one place, and focusing on building platforms for coordination to act on larger scales
As a Lemmy user I'm certainly intrigued with the buzzwords you've thrown out, but there doesn't seem to be an actual system anywhere in there.
capitalism may not be "the problem" but it is a problem.
capitalists have paid harris to kick her out if she wins, so lina khan will be gone soon regardless of who wins.