←back to thread

258 points anigbrowl | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jleyank ◴[] No.44611189[source]
It's really depressing how the US system seems to have existed "on belief". Once somebody set out to damage or destroy it, away it went. Pretty much without a whimper.

As I recall, the system was set up with 3 branches of government in tension. Obviously, that was naive.

replies(20): >>44611243 #>>44611251 #>>44611274 #>>44611292 #>>44611294 #>>44611300 #>>44611372 #>>44611468 #>>44612747 #>>44612970 #>>44613048 #>>44613100 #>>44613128 #>>44613243 #>>44613469 #>>44613869 #>>44615093 #>>44616024 #>>44616939 #>>44617655 #
ergonaught ◴[] No.44611292[source]
All societies are consensus realities wholly dependent upon participation.

The system was fine but no one has yet constructed a system that can withstand weaponized mass stupidity. Even the ones created to combat corruption fail to account for this danger.

So.

replies(3): >>44611518 #>>44612892 #>>44612985 #
echelon ◴[] No.44612892[source]
Weaponized social media. That's what wasn't predicted.
replies(2): >>44612941 #>>44613781 #
wyldfire ◴[] No.44612941[source]
Maybe the abnormal thing was the century or so we had of papers/radio/TV guided by ethics or professionalism or some delicate trustworthiness-equilibrium.

And now we have returned to a state where humanity is guided by inventive stories and manipulated by propaganda.

replies(2): >>44613028 #>>44613293 #
pfannkuchen ◴[] No.44613028[source]
This implies that the period with massively more centralized control of information had a truer consensus reality.

That seems… unlikely?

replies(3): >>44613058 #>>44613566 #>>44617119 #
1. maxerickson ◴[] No.44617119[source]
It wasn't that centralized (many many independent newspapers and such).

And then "information" is doing a lot of work when you start talking about social media.