I think it is part of a long term strategy.
They saw all the negative feedback that was given when the first announcement came and there were a lot of users saying its not so bad or that we should give them a chance then.
Eventually everything became quiet and things moved on now there is a steady rise of pro Meta comments again and this time it will lead to a less violent reaction because it has already happened once before.
Rinse and repeat until they become the norm.
Can’t all vpns do this though?
I just want to say that I agree with the sentiment and want to point out that a leader is (at least from the way you framed it) just a conduit for the beliefs and goals of the group.
That’s why if the leader doesn’t align enough with what the group believes then over time they eventually get ignored and attentions shifts over to someone else that better represents the groups beliefs.
I believe that that is one way of organizing a group however I also think that we have the technology to circumvent even the need for leadership since the benefit of a leader comes from them being an outward expression of the group’s values that everyone can coordinate with, which can be replaced with specific communication technologies.
Ok then I guess I need to read more about the psychology behind that then. But yeah we do need to find ways to make people less susceptible to authoritarianism.
What I’m arguing is that it isn’t an inherent part of human nature but instead it is something that is culturally ingrained in most people.
Therefore even if we did dismantle the system people would still have those preconceptions about how society should work and therefore they will rebuild this same systems.
There was a book that I read sometime ago that detailed a group of people that travelled to a remote island to try and start a new society from scratch. Almost immediately people began to reimplement the same structures that they grew up in.
Thanks for your response. Also I sort of didn’t separate the idea of hierarchy and authoritarianism on purpose because I think it is more about the structure of how decisions get made that is important.
If in most cases an individual isn’t making certain decisions and instead those decisions are being handled by others then people aren’t going to have the capacity to make those kinds of decisions themselves.
And with the kinds of hierarchy that we see in our daily lives are stifling our ability to make the decisions that would also be removed under an authoritarian political system.
So it’s more about making it more familiar rather than the actual systems that we have now being completely authoritarian already.
You are bringing up many good points.
I agree that if decisions that benefited the public were being made under our current system then less people would be in favor of “strong leaders”.
I also agree that people don’t look at the authoritative systems in their lives in a good light most of the time.
The thing is that you don’t have to like a system to be able to accept it. Just having repeated exposure makes you more willing to go along with stuff you might usually be opposed to.
Secondly as the saying goes “with great power comes great responsibility” and right now we are concentrating power in the hands of these leaders so people believe that it is up to these individuals to fix our problems for us because they are responsible for us (which include them making the right decisions).
Edit: specifically they believe that as individuals they don’t have the power to affect the world therefore they are putting the responsibility in the hands of the people that do have that power which is the only way they have been taught they can affect the world.
I could argue with you on this for sometime but I’m not going to because that isn’t the point I’m making here.
To repeat myself
I am saying that using that kind of system to run a business plants the seeds that make people ok with living in an authoritarian world.
You aren’t actually refuting my point. You are just saying that it is impossible to not have an authority.
To set something straight when I use the term “authoritarian” I’m using it in the more broad sense to talk about obeying an authority which would then include the boss-worker relationship.
Secondly I never said that the system doesn’t work, have any benefit, or would be better off if there wasn’t a boss (even though I do believe the last one) but I am saying that using that kind of system to run a business plants the seeds that make people ok with living in an authoritarian world.
Also thats the same argument with how people say that living under a benevolent dictator would be more efficient than democracy.
I mean yeah maybe (I’d even say it’s debatable) but that’s not a kind of system that we want.
As an extra tidbit the link I put in the post shows that the USA and Australia are the only place where people who are centrist are more likely to accept authoritarianism than both left and right leaning voters.
Make of that what you will.
Hmm. Could you explain your position more?
Edit: wait I just realized this could be sarcasm.
I appreciate it.