89
'Anonymity Online Is Going to Die': What Age-Verification Laws Could Look Like in the U.S.
(www.rollingstone.com)
this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2025
89 points (97.8% liked)
Privacy
2434 readers
209 users here now
Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There is absolutely a machine to manufacture public sentiment. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
Technically yes but what is it based on? Human nature. The vast majority has no problem with mass surveillance, just like the vast majority has no problem with climate change. Either people don't care or they think it will benefit them in some way or they adapt. Humans are very good at adapting. Only a tiny minority is unable to and they can't influence politics.
I'm not sure what the point is. We should just give up? We should not complain about the consent manufacturing machine? Do you really have nothing better to do than actively argue we should just resign to be chess pieces for the powerful?
So just doomerism. Frankly, that's not useful, and all you're doing is helping the powerful by spreading it.
You're delusional if you think that this is doomerism. And you're actually proving my point. Just like I can't influence you, you can't influence anyone else either. The difference between us is that I'm aware of it while you aren't.
More like you're peddling pseudointellectual slop. Drawing a conclusion from a single conversation that a point is being proven is silly, for one thing.
But you also have refused to admit you're making a point even when prompted directly. The logical conclusion of saying "nothing will change the outcome" is "don't try". And of course we aren't changing each others minds in this short conversation. I have deep seated beliefs that the common people can effect change, if only enough of them could wake up, and that part of the puzzle is the manufactured consent framework, as I mentioned - and you denied - then walked back partially with some drivel about human nature.
Meanwhile you don't seem to stand for anything, except maybe "trying is pointless". Everyone knows positive change is an uphill battle. You're not telling anyone anything new.
But that's just your belief. I rather stick to history as a foundation for any prognosis. Or psychology, especially psychology of the masses. But yeah, if scientific facts are just pseudointellectual slop for you then there is no way to have a productive conversation.
There are plenty of times in history when common people have effected change.
People absolutely influence each other. On the rate of a couple lemmy comments its marginally tiny. But they do.
At risk of sounding cliché, we live in a society.
And heirarchy in not inevitable. The kind of social stratification we see today has only been around roughly 10’000 years. Which is nothing in the grand scheme, in evolutionary time.
For most of human history, human relationships underwent far more egalitarian structure.