Are you a luddite?

[luka]

I like this routine we've gotten into a couple times where version and I play the anti-capitalist and pro-capitalist roles, while luka stands in the bleachers hollering insults at me.

you dont listen!

 

[Clinamenic]

But ultimately I think the efficacy/genuineness of these mental health proto-industries depends largely on consumer demand and scruples, and that is more up to the liberal institutions of academia and culture to bolster, it seems.

 

[Clinamenic]

I.e. informing audiences about mental health. But if you go on to say that all mental health studies are irretrievably coopted by corporate interests, I may have to reassert the "paranoiac fantasy" argument against you.

 

[Clinamenic]

I believe a healthy and non-alienated consumer base is better for business, generally. Maybe with some despotic and dystopian corner cases.

 

[version]

I.e. informing audiences about mental health. But if you go on to say that all mental health studies are irretrievably coopted by corporate interests, I may have to reassert the "paranoiac fantasy" argument against you.

A world where these things aren't coopted by corporate interests seems a greater fantasy to me. You can't really do anything without corporate money.

 

[Clinamenic]

Yeah I agree, that does seem like a greater fantasy. I think there is a balance of intentions here, with the money on the side of the incumbent agendas which are understandably conservative when it comes to change.

But I also think we have enough of a margin of genuine intent to nudge things in the right direction. I just think this nudging can't happen if we take a strictly anti-capitalist, anti-corporate approach, which I'm not saying characterizes your points here.

 

[Clinamenic]

But take mental health studies, as a naive example. We can imagine what kind of entities are funding this. May be publicly funded in some cases, may be funded by institutions which are funded by wealthy private interests, may be a combo.

But I think these sorts of studies are sufficiently incentivized to procure genuine mental health findings, rather than purely the findings that are optimally and exclusively oriented around the products/services of the agendas that are directly/indirectly funding that research.

That is, I think there is enough of an alignment of popular interests with private interests to render genuine progress possible, if even more slowly than we like.

 

[version]

Whatever they do is likely to be trumped by the profit motive, something which is often in direct conflict with the interests of the consumer.

 

[Clinamenic]

I don't disagree with your conclusion per se, I just think its often a false dichotomy. I think in many situations a business strategy of listening to what people want and building a model around that, is a more effective model long-term than just forcing people to think they want what you have to offer.

 

[Clinamenic]

something which is often in direct conflict with the interests of the consumer.

But I do agree with this. This seems obvious to me, with "often" being an operative term, as opposed to always.

And the difference between always and often here, is enough of a difference to allow for substantive progress in terms of a favorable societal arrangement, wherein wealthy ill-intent doesn't hold totalitarian influence.

 

[version]

I don't disagree with your conclusion per se, I just think its often a false dichotomy. I think in many situations a business strategy of listening to what people want and building a model around that, is a more effective model long-term than just forcing people to think they want what you have to offer.

You don't necessarily have to do either. You can just phase things out and remove the ability to choose, e.g. my point about nobody wanting microtransactions. Nobody's happy about them, but they're there anyway.

 

[version]

But I do agree with this. This seems obvious to me, with "often" being an operative term, as opposed to always.

And the difference between always and often here, is enough of a difference to allow for substantive progress in terms of a favorable societal arrangement, wherein wealthy ill-intent doesn't hold totalitarian influence.

The regulatory bodies are supposed to counter this stuff, but they're increasingly compromised themselves.

 

[Clinamenic]

You don't necessarily have to do either. You can just phase things out and remove the ability to choose, e.g. my point about nobody wanting microtransactions.

Yeah microtransactions I think is a situation where desire is largely artificial and manufactured to prop up the market itself.

But then again, if we are talking about virtual/avatar cosmetics, why do people buy designer/brand clothing in real life?

 

[Clinamenic]

The regulatory bodies are supposed to counter this stuff, but they're increasingly compromised themselves.

Here again I agree, in the US I think the center of gravity of (more or less) everything wrong with our system, boils down to the rulings of Citizen's United v FEC, and maybe Buckley v Valeo, both pertaining to campaign finance.

I don't see a good enough argument for why lobbying can even happen behind closed doors. If its public policy, the deliberations and informational meetings should be public, maybe with some corner cases. Just my opinion though.

 

[Clinamenic]

maybe with some corner cases.

Maybe pertaining to matters of national security, but even then I'm not convinced that private meetings about public policy are justified. I could just be unaware of the major arguments here - but we can all guess who would be in favor of these arguments.

 

[Clinamenic]

Here again I agree, in the US I think the center of gravity of (more or less) everything wrong with our system, boils down to the rulings of Citizen's United v FEC, and maybe Buckley v Valeo, both pertaining to campaign finance.

I don't see a good enough argument for why lobbying can even happen behind closed doors. If its public policy, the deliberations and informational meetings should be public, maybe with some corner cases. Just my opinion though.

I don't see a reason why the likes of Lockheed Martin / Northrop Grumman execs should be on advisory panels for defense spending and policy, even if those execs had previous experience that would render them viable candidates for such a panel.

 

[Clinamenic]

I think a lot of this stuff is murky and sticky, but still lightyears ahead of straight-up monarchical dictatorships where unchecked nepotism was the standard, i.e. dynastic rule.

 

[version]

Yeah microtransactions I think is a situation where desire is largely artificial and manufactured to prop up the market itself.

But then again, if we are talking about virtual/avatar cosmetics, why do people buy designer/brand clothing in real life?

I'm talking about the mechanism itself, not the individual products. A game used to be complete at sale. Now it's sold in fragments.

 

[Clinamenic]

I'm talking about the mechanism itself, not the individual products. A game used to be complete at sale. Now it's sold in fragments.

In some cases, this enables to base game itself to be free.

 

[Clinamenic]

In some cases, this enables to base game itself to be free.

In these cases, which aren't all of them, I think I'd actually prefer the microtransaction paradigm, so long as the in-game purchases don't amount to a pay-to-win game, but rather are confined only to cosmetic items, which there is obviously a massive market for.