it’s one thing to convince you to buy something and it’s an entirely different thing to condition to you accept that genocides are necessary sometimes; vote against your own interests or else the other team will win; propagandize you against foreign political enemies; distract you from global rings of oligarchical pedofiles who torture, rape, kill and eat children for funsies; and many other things.
it’s one thing to convince you to buy something and it’s an entirely different thing to condition to you accept that genocides are necessary sometimes; vote against your own interests or else the other team will win; propagandize you against foreign political enemies; distract you from global rings of oligarchical pedofiles who torture, rape, kill and eat children for funsies; and many other things.
like, i see what you mean but i’m afraid that modern society doesn’t see it that way. “moral relativism” (a.k.a. post-structuralism) states that there is no absolute truth, neither is there an absolute set of ethics; and as a consequence, it must be possible to negotiate these ethics on the “free market of ideas”, a.k.a the internet where big influencer institutions pay to sway your opinion. It’s all just a market game: Buy and sell opinions, and see which ones perform best as a consequence.
my previous comments is evidence enough that modern society’s views are skewed through a lenses shaped by those big influencers enough that there’s no such thing as a free market; only a capture one.
i mean that’s what it’s there for? always has been
like, how else do you think companies on the internet make money? by manipulating public opinion
it’s one thing to convince you to buy something and it’s an entirely different thing to condition to you accept that genocides are necessary sometimes; vote against your own interests or else the other team will win; propagandize you against foreign political enemies; distract you from global rings of oligarchical pedofiles who torture, rape, kill and eat children for funsies; and many other things.
like, i see what you mean but i’m afraid that modern society doesn’t see it that way. “moral relativism” (a.k.a. post-structuralism) states that there is no absolute truth, neither is there an absolute set of ethics; and as a consequence, it must be possible to negotiate these ethics on the “free market of ideas”, a.k.a the internet where big influencer institutions pay to sway your opinion. It’s all just a market game: Buy and sell opinions, and see which ones perform best as a consequence.
my previous comments is evidence enough that modern society’s views are skewed through a lenses shaped by those big influencers enough that there’s no such thing as a free market; only a capture one.