• GrapheneOSRuinedMyPixel@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    you guys are hilarious, I used to live somewhere where this system exists and was designed with all these right reasons and now a social media post that conflicts with the state’s viewpoint will land you a 10 year sentence.

    this seems like an especially likely outcome if designed in the current US political climate.

    my point is regulation is not a solution and I don’t see any way to overcome this under capitalism. the only thing that might work is some kind of worker-operated cooperative like what the guys at 404 media are doing.

    • Turret3857@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      So what is the solution short of a complete US revolution which will have hundreds of thousands if not millions killed and hoping that everyone will come out socialists, anarchists and communists on the other side?

      I do not disagree that the country SHOULD be socialist, anarchist and/or communist. I do not see that happening anytime soon unless an actual civil war breaks out.

      • GrapheneOSRuinedMyPixel@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        implementation of my proposal would still require a minor revolution as the current system will not allow to elect a legislator that will pass these points:

        1. Designate any newspaper, TV/YouTube/telegram channel, blog, Instagram account, etc with more than a 100k monthly views/impressions/followers/whatever as a public faced media.
        2. Make the only allowed ownership form of these media outlets something like worker cooperatives.
        3. Somewhat limit the ownership stakes so that no single member of this cooperative can make all the decisions.
        4. The cooperative should have public financial records so the anyone can see where the revenue comes from.

        This still does not protect against a billionaire buying out everyone in the cooperative through donations via multiple shell companies, but it is an improvement. What I like is that a large media holding can still exist under this scheme, but any corruption would be somewhat apparent.