I think there are two policy changes foundationally necessary for a healthy democracy- 1- No private money in politics, period. Ironclad anti-corruption, anti-bribery laws. Citizens United must be not just destroyed, but inverted. 2- Better news media. No lying, no opinion news. - ThreadSky

silent0siris.bsky.social • 7 days ago

I think there are two policy changes foundationally necessary for a healthy democracy-

1- No private money in politics, period. Ironclad anti-corruption, anti-bribery laws. Citizens United must be not just destroyed, but inverted.

2- Better news media. No lying, no opinion news.

Comments

thenicoftime.bsky.social•7 days ago

Unfortunately I don’t think 2 is possible as a policy to pursue. Not really possible for the government to regulate that, without it letting the government infringe on free speech, which would be a worse outcome.

silent0siris.bsky.social•7 days ago

Other countries- Canada for example- have laws about what the news media is allowed to say! Fairness Doctrine used to be the law in the US. Not that any of these are perfect, but there’s clearly a need to fix something here currently.

thenicoftime.bsky.social•7 days ago

Far right parties/politicians are rising everywhere, like Reform in the UK or AfD in Germany. The issues with news media in the US are not the driver of fascism, it’s a combination of material conditions (ie the economy) and the internet.

thenicoftime.bsky.social•7 days ago

I actually agree on hate speech, that should be more regulated, but “verifiable falsehoods” is an impossible thing to regulate without giving the government too much power over speech in general, and also is just infeasible as a way to tackle the internet as a problem for disinformation.

silent0siris.bsky.social•7 days ago

The litmus test for this is: the people who sold the verifiably false idea that vaccines cause autism, largely so they could push alternative cures, leading to preventable deaths- should that speech behavior be curtailed?

thenicoftime.bsky.social•7 days ago

It kinda was. Andrew Wakefield had to do several hearings about it, had his medical license revoked and the original paper retracted. You couldn’t regulate the news media around it at the time, they can plausibly say they believed Wakefield.

jed05.bsky.social•7 days ago

Sure. Simply just get everyone to agree to no longer live under capitalism. Easy.

silent0siris.bsky.social•7 days ago

I mean, I actually think these are both entirely compatible with (well regulated) capitalism. But also if a system is creating bad outcomes, we should indeed work to change that system.

jed05.bsky.social•7 days ago

Capitalism isn’t compatible with regulation though. Capitalism says more money no matter what and will always push people to deregulate no matter the harm.

It is a flawed system at its core. And the only way to change, as far as I see, is a revolution, and not the voting kind.

silent0siris.bsky.social•7 days ago

you know

I have a very hard time disagreeing 😂

I’ve described it as the acid that will corrode any container

kaeam.bsky.social•7 days ago

Having more than just two major political parties would probably also help, but I guess that it is unlikely to happen in the US.

silent0siris.bsky.social•7 days ago

yep, proportional rep is far superior to first past the post!

jeffhamilton.bsky.social•6 days ago

fwiw since states administer elections, it's more possible here than it might seem to change election rules for potentially better outcomes. Just requires local organization and then state level organization

unlimitedblack.bsky.social•6 days ago

There's an interesting discussion to be had about where a right to privacy butts up against the need for accountability about who pays for an election campaign.

Because a right to privacy is THERE in terms of the policies on due process, search and seizure, even quartering of soldiers...

unlimitedblack.bsky.social•6 days ago

... but if that privacy extends to a citizen being able to donate privately to a candidate's campaign or PAC, that's what leads to the present model of elected officials being beholden to their donors and not the entirety of their constituencies.

unlimitedblack.bsky.social•6 days ago

I don't know what the solution is, I don't know if what we need is to eliminate some aspects of privacy when it extends to how one can influence an election that will have broader impact than one's home, but I feel very strongly that a) corporations cannot be people and b) DARK MONEY BAD.

unlimitedblack.bsky.social•6 days ago

Oh, and an additional note on this: the Framers of the Constitution naturally wrote a system that was oriented around serving the needs of wealthy white male landowners (i.e. themselves), with suffrage for everyone else coming in after the fact. THAT is the origin of money in politics as a problem.

unlimitedblack.bsky.social•6 days ago

If you redesign the Constitution from the ground up with knowledge that ALL of your citizens of voting age, regardless of gender, race, creed, or wealth, must be equal actors in the eyes of the government, then facets of that design are naturally different from what the Framers built.

silent0siris.bsky.social•7 days ago

Also 3- I think unquestioned free speech is bad, actually! I think there should be a carve out for public dissemination of both hate speech and verifiable falsehoods, both of which have proven destructive to American democracy.

zhl.sh•7 days ago

You are the first North American I see come to that conclusion. It has always baffled me, the blind and fervent fanaticism in favor of free speech, when there's such blatant examples in history of why it might not be the best idea.

zhl.sh•7 days ago

It's why Germany's Grundgesetz, which the allies helped draft after WW2, puts protection of one's dignity purposefully above one's right to state an opinion in the hierarchy of core principles.

jyoungman.bsky.social•6 days ago

I'm with you in principle here, especially for political actors, but there's a huge who watches the watchmen problem.

How do you enforce a truth in politics law without making the enforcers themselves a threat to democracy?

silent0siris.bsky.social•6 days ago

fair question! I don’t know the answer but… also it’s clear that not doing that has led to some really undesirable outcomes!

jyoungman.bsky.social•6 days ago

I think hate speech is easier; the big hump there is getting people to understand that it is itself violence.

But judging truth is more precarious. I really wish I had a good answer.

mikkelepedersen.bsky.social•7 days ago

That is how it is in Denmark. Where to draw the line is under constant (often furious) debate, but I think it keeps us healthy. Since it restricts basic freedoms, it is important to challenge it hard and often, so it keeps being "right".

zcottic.us•6 days ago

Can't argue with this, other top priorities:
- Ranked choice voting
- Aggressive wealth/capital gains/marginal tax rates

silent0siris.bsky.social•6 days ago

the council has ratified the adoption of your platform proposals!!

zcottic.us•6 days ago

I've been really enjoying @garyseconomics.bsky.social's content. Great insight into how wealth inequality is driving many of the issues we face. He's UK based, but we're all facing similar issues!

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5Ghe5TBQGYIOANuiNW4hDQ

jyoungman.bsky.social•6 days ago

Important to support you state @fairvote.bsky.social chapter to get ranked choice voting adopted!

beewubs.bsky.social•6 days ago

I think we need an international standard for what constitutes journalism and that no business with a profit motive should be legally allowed to call what they peddle news or journalism.

The profit motive inherently biases everything.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply