“ Smaller groups of wealthy businesspeople control larger swaths of the country's information ecosystem, pitting their overall corporate interests against the public's desire for accurate journalism challenging powerful institutions in society.”
> "2026 looks ominous for media, from Hollywood to journalism"
Ppl finally leaving legacy/corporate/virtue-signaling media is good news to me. The "free" western media being the exact opposite of free: owned by billionaires - is and old problem but a certain part of the population seems to notice only now when some of the owners took off the playlist their favorite "progressive" lullaby.
Maybe it's because you're throwing around terms like "communism" incorrectly while simultaneously telling people they need to read history books.
It's the same term Trump has been using to fear monger around Zoran's candidacy, and doesn't seem to relate to any of his actual policies.
If you can enlighten us about the relationship between 1950s soviet bloc communism in eastern europe and a fairly run-of-the-mill 2020s Bernie-styled democratic socalist platform, I'm all ears.
"But then there are also other issues that we firmly believe in, whether it's BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions of Israel), right, or whether it's the end goal of seizing the means of production, where we do not have the same level of support at this very moment.
"And what I want to say is that it is critical that the way that we organize, the way that we set up our you know, set up our work and our priorities, that we do not leave any one issue for the other, that we do not meet a moment and only look at what people are ready for, but that we are doing both of these things in tandem, because it is critical for us to both meet people where they're at and to also organize and organize for what is correct and for what is right and to ensure over time we can bring people to that issue."
so yes, it's not 1950s soviet bloc communism. it's more like he has as a target 1917
Oh this isn't communism. Here are the facts, the Bolsheviks were a faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. They originally participated in the democratic process before they took power. Regardless of the fact that they are going through the steps now, the end goal of the DSA is the abolishment of private property. Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, whatever you want to call it, is a uniquely evil ideology that kills millions as they hate anyone with more money. It has not worked a single time it has been attempted. Every single time it has been tried in any form, Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin/Stalin, etc. millions die.
"Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, whatever you want to call it". Those are 3 very different things. And so you just bucket democratic socialists into "basket of scary things I don't like", and call it a day... I really don't think this is how political discourse should function.
If you're genuinely open to this conversation - the Soviet Union funded many of the world's labor movements, giving it varying amounts of influence on them. Influence which it sometimes used to spread talking points of its own choice and to its benefit. Democratic Socialists of America was born from a branch of one of these movements. This is more visible looking at DSA's foreign policy platform, where today they use virtually identical talking points to those the Soviet Union distributed to their partners back in the 60s and 70s.
I don't know if a purely organic and independent socialist movement could have existed, but in this world, the movements with the means and resources to get their voices heard are going to be the ones who inherited resources and networks from their predecessors.
As someone who has several friends and family who work in the mid / lower tiers of the entertainment industry... if you want to pirate, fine, but don't act like you're performing a noble act. Are entertainment execs grossly overpaid and exploitative? Sure - not unlike many industries. But lower revenue and lower subscriber numbers do have an impact on the money that trickles down (yes, trickles, sadly) to employees.
I say this mostly because the tech set seems OK with content piracy in a way that they wouldn't be OK with say, shoplifting. I don't see people recommending walking out with a pair of Airpods from best buy because of Apple's ethical breaches.
Shoplifting and copyright violation are not comparable.
Most of us on this site produce copyrighted works for money. Many of us are pretty knowledgable about how copyright works, as it's an integral part of our livelihood. So please don't try to promulgate that weird media industry propaganda here.
Ah yeah the weird propaganda that people labor to make creative output, and if you value that output and have the means, you should consider paying for it.
Also, read what I wrote: "if you want to pirate, fine, but don't act like you're performing a noble act". What specifically bugs me is less so the act - I assume few among us haven't engaged in illegal streaming, paywall bypassing, password sharing etc. - it's the weird contortions people go through to frame piracy as a noble endeavor vs. just admitting they're being too cheap to pay for something.
But if I understand correctly, you aren't cutting back your dependence on the US. You are cutting back on paying for your dependence. If you really want to cut back, consume non-US media.
They are quite comparable, and it's not media industry propaganda. I'm old enough to remember life before mp3 sharing. The only way to get music was from a CD, bought or stolen. I didn't steal CDs, so when "free" mp3s were available, I didn't take them either.
Commit theft if you want, but be an adult and acknowledge it for what it is.
So copyright matters only sometimes? If that’s so, I bet anyone who consumed pirated content has had some positive impact on the society because of it.
