i still want a calvin peeing on calvin peeing on fractal sticker

Well, no. It dies because you're unwilling to fund it. Because apparently finding your wallet is too much effort.

And multiply that times a few hundred million lazy humans and now you know why real journalism is dying.

It’s not a viable business model because people are people.

You are 100% correct. People just want to believe that Capitalism is uniquely corrupt. When literally all of human history has seen us exploit and greedily destroy every social and economic system humans have ever engineered. Now including capitalism.

Good regulations prevent critical exploitation, which is why European capitalism is still functional and looked on positively despite still being capitalism.

Only through regulations can an economic system be maintained. US Capitalism is failing because it has been steadily deregulated for the last 40 years.

So yes, Capitalism is poison. But so is blowfish unless you cut it right. Every system we've ever built is also poisoned for failure unless it's always cut down and regulated to its basics.

Yeah, I agree. People were doing an en masse boycott, using tiktok as a way to gather, and who to hit, then, bam suddenly the elites have to buy tiktok. I know they did that for other reasons too, controlling the narrative and what people see and know has been the M.O. of the evil elite, since days of old, but it just seemed like interesting timing. If we all just gather and boycott, together, as a movement, do targeted hits, I wonder if we could break their choke hold on us. I know there's a lot of movements for boycotting, people are moving away from the more evil things. I just feel like it doesn't get as widely spread as it should? Maybe? And I really appreciated the approach behind the other movement, they targeted one brand for one quarter, in a very calculated and planned strategy, so as not to affect anyone's jobs.

It's not a viable business model because of capitalism, not because of human nature.

You're describing a form of the tragedy of the commons.

Totally. If people didn’t have to worry about material needs it would solve a lot of things.

Advertising is one of the most prolific environmental pollutants of economic activity, and needs to become as socially acceptable as smoking.

I was thinking about this earlier today.

It’s amazing to me that in my lifetime, ads went from a thing that companies got to do as an extra once they had succes all the way to a thing that runs everything everywhere.

Nowadays if you don’t have ads in some form abusing the algorithm (which is in itself designed to be abused) then you get nowhere.

(Also holy shit this has a lot of comments, seems like people have this on their liver somewhat)

TBF, the original meaning of advertising was just that: spread the word about your product. Sure, praise it, add nice pictures, but that's about it. People need to know that your product is out there, and what it's like.

I get that, if you're arguing from an economic efficiency standpoint, there was an argument to be made that the spreading of new information through advertising helps to spread new innovative ideas and thus increases overall societal efficiency.

It's just that a) in the Internet age, we have other, non-advertising ways to spread information (i.e. specs and reviews), and b) if advertising was actually still about genuine education, then it would not scale in effectiveness the way it does with volume and repetition.

Kind of funny this has to be discussed in shower thoughts when its a central theme of our entire world at the moment.

What if you want a cookie, but not enough to go to the grocery store and buy some cookies?

I fixed that for you:

What if you want a cookie, but not enough to go to the grocery store and buy some cookies, after showing your ID card for its number to be written up?

Do you think capitalism works? It very clearly works for some, but would you claim that it works in a broader sense?

You didn't answer my question. Do you think journalists shouldn't be paid for their work?

people have this on their liver somewhat

Interesting, I've never heard that phrase. Are you a native English speaker, or was that brought through another language? I'm reminded of how in Farsi, the liver is used in phrases that most other languages don't use it for. Like, instead of calling someone you love your 'heart", you call them your "liver," but it carries the same intent.

The advertisement-based business model has turned out to be highly successful, just like the newspapers have proven. However, magazines were a hybrid solution. You would pay for the magazine, but there would still be a few ads. Reminds me of modern Netflix actually.

Oh yes, I hadn’t thought about that!
Having something on your liver is an expression that’s native to the Dutch language (afaik).

Meaning something that’s annoying, bothering you, gnawing at your conscience, pissing you off,…

I'm not generally disagreeing with your assessment of the current situation, just a little historical BTW.

in the Internet age, we have other, non-advertising ways to spread information (i.e. specs and reviews),

Interesting, I never thought of it that way.

However, most of that is still part of advertising; producers proactively strive to get reviewed.

They definitely try, but why do we let them?

Yeah a lot of what many think of typical internet stuff is just a new turbocharged edition of what has existed for much longer IRL.

Couple of things that are either a definition, obvious, or directly observable in literally every capitalist nation in history:

• the defining characteristic of capitalism is the private ownership of businesses
• the ability to own a business can buy you influence on the electorate legally, through owning ad agencies, newspapers, think tanks, online influencers
• owning a business can buy you influence on politicians legally, by hiring lobbyists, by threatening to take your business elsewhere, by promising politicians cushy jobs after their tenure, by contributing to their campaign through fundraisers, PACs, etc
• this influence gives you the power to change laws and regulations to your benefit
• in particular, it allows you to shape laws to benefit you financially, making the actions in point 2 and 3 easier to do
• in particular, it allows you to get rid of laws restricting you to do the things in points 2 and 3
• it is in the best interest of politicians to deregulate the latter parts of point 3
• as such, a capitalist system where only parts or even none of point 2 and 3 are allowed, has a natural tendency towards a system where they are fully allowed

Leaving all other economic systems aside for a moment*, the idea that this is not a direct and natural consequence of capitalism doesn't seem to hold water, both on a theoretical and an empirical level.

(*)And we do this because, analogously, arguing your right hand isn't bleeding by saying your left hand is makes no sense. Capitalism can be studied in its own right. What's more is that the number of alternative systems is infinite, and I'm sure lemmy has a character limit.

Because they have everyone addicted using devilishly addictive algorithms, socio-psychological hacks and platforms designed to amplify it all. Meanwhile, we’re still stuck prescribing individual solutions to these deeply systemic structural issues.

You laid it out so well I needed time to process it, my thanks :)

Exactly. There is no systemic response to the issue

You might as well tell me it's my fault that you can't fly because I pointed out that gravity exists.

I hate them as much as you do, but I at least know where to place the blame.

Yes, exactly, and if you continue in this same vein, fascism becomes inevitable, too. Capitalism really must be abolished.

European capitalism is still functional and looked on positively despite still being capitalism

I'm really sorry to burst this bubble, but as a European, no. Capitalism is devouring us from the inside out. Haven't you seen that basically every EU nation has a surging far right?

Capitalism is not uniquely capable of being exploited more than the systems which it replaced, but you're wrong that it can be regulated. Yes, regulations can be passed, but they cannot be maintained. Capitalism will inevitably trend towards fascism as a matter of design. It is just human nature.

This is why we need a system that acknowledges the reality of human nature. That's why I'm an anarchist. It's the only system which really accounts for the fact that humans will abuse power for selfish reasons.

This is why Josie and the Pussycats is the best movie ever.

(Join the army)

read Subprime Attention Crisis. our surviellance state was implemented to sell products. however, the products didn't sell because online ad models being more efficient than traditional ad models has always been a lie

Capitalism can be curbed.

It can't. It always leads to fascism. It always has. It always will.

Who knew that adverts were the secret power cabal running everything all the time.

That's all well and fine but if you're presenting the topic for discussion on a public forum you're limiting the audience. The gist isn't enough for complete discussion. So the cries about it being paywalled are completely justified.

Consumerism is a symptom of capitalism. Capitalism is the illness

Compare Europe's surge of Far Right to the US's.
They're handling it a lot better and passing regulations to prevent it in the future. Even getting laws passed to regulate the total use of social media by kids.

I'm not saying capitalism is perfect in Europe, I'm saying it's a better example of how to regulate it into something sustainable.

Respectfully, the biggest flaw in anarchism imo is that it's not a system at all. It's basically just tribalism and immediately devolves into the rule of whoevers strongest in those tribes.

Humans are social creatures. We have literally always made societies based on expanded family dynamics and rules, as that is literally human nature. We want family and structure, and to do that we create rules that structure needs to follow for the family to survive.

Anarchism doesn't really work for the elderly. The sick. The disabled. Anarchism doesn't really do anything to protect the families we create as whoever is strongest can just take what they want when they want to.

Granted, Capitalism is horrible, but literally any system we create is doomed to become horrible and fucked up if we cannot regulate it from corruption. If we can't prevent it from being taken over by strong opinionated assholes, it will also eventually devolve into tribalism.

Literally the problem that needs solving is just our own dark nature. That some of us are born without the capacity to understand our social nature, and survive exclusively through exploiting it. Those people are the sociopaths that have destroyed every society we've ever had, including the earliest recorded ones that were basically anarchistic.

It is within our nature to be highly social, but the few of us born without that nature only want to take from others instead of giving.

That dual nature of humanity is something that no civilization we've ever built has survived.

Compare Europe’s surge of Far Right to the US’s

It just hasn't come into power YET. You are being hugely dismissive. I am European and I follow US and European politics extremely closely and I am outright telling you that Europe is a hair away from the same shit, if not worse, than the US. Many EU nations are punishing people for protesting genocide.

Capitalism can not be reformed. It cannot be regulated. It is like a force of nature. It will always lead to fascism. It is inevitable.

You don't know what anarchism is about, I'd encourage you to learn more about anarchism before dismissing it. I'd recommend checking out an anarchist FAQ.

Any European country with ranked choice voting is safe from the 2 system exploit that has allowed people like Trump and Orban to take office.

I've already agreed that any system we design will collapse including capitalism. Regulations are what's needed to maintain any system from collapse. This includes Anarchism.

Without rules, what's to stop sociopaths taking what they want? The issue isn't what system is best, it's what can be done to prevent any system from collapsing.

The answer is regulations. Not the complete absense of them. We have an incredible amount of data and studies that consistently show how anarchistic societies based on self motivation are immediately exploited by strong men sociopaths.

The same with capitalism. The enemies of both are the same, but at least with capitalism there is a mechanism through which to maintain regulations. Self-governing communities always self corrupt, as evidenced by the US's now entire corrupt system that was previously self-governing. It just took centuries to corrupt because of strict regulations. But in those centuries people had livelihoods.

Anarchism provides no mechanism by which this can be protected for so long by design. It's a system that allows for maximum exploitation by those who want to exploit it.
That is the double edge of not having bigger heirarchal structures - there's no reason not to take through strength if you have it. No punishment for breaking rules as there are no general rules that society can reliably enforce.

Historically, Anarchistic societies bend the knee to the first warlord that wants to conquer them, and then only after generations of suffering feel that maybe there should be rules and a hierarchy of law to prevent such exploitation.

I'm very familiar with what Anarchism is. And you're just focusing on the rose colored parts of it the same as you think I'm doing for Capitalism.

No system works. Period. But rules do. And unfortunately a system is needed for those rules. We just haven't found the right one yet that can last for more than a couple hundred years.

However, most of that is still part of advertising; producers proactively strive to get reviewed.

Reaching out to reviewers is still technically advertising in the broadest definition of the word, but it is distinct from commercial advertising where companies pay to broadcast their specific messages to users.

This distinction is also reflected in the way that most companies are operated these days: reaching out to reviewers with information and offering them review units would fall under the marketing / communications / strategy department, but wouldn't be referred to as advertising unless they were paying the reviewer for a positive review, which isn't even legal in some places.