Interview with Edward Snowden

In some sense ok. But practically we really need to accept that there are a range of apolitical opinions. There is a massive issue with this proposed alternative - it is divisive. That line of thinking leads to the classic "with us or against us" style model where one group accepts there is a problem, defines group boundaries then labels everyone not in the group as part of the problem.

If that framing takes hold (and if "can't be apolitical" becomes the dominant philosophy then it will take hold amongst the activists); what is the plan for resolving the issue? Once people are publicly labelled as 'tacitly endorsing' something that they aren't going to be receptive to new ideas.

In terms of actually doing something there is more power in inclusive ideologies where everyone puts their preferences on the table, listens to alternatives and discusses options with people they don't necessarily agree with, and pick a solution that is as fair and reasonable as possible and the people who are disadvantaged accept it on the grounds that they'll get a win next time.

Division is one of a couple of easy paths to conflict. Best to avoid it and let people claim neutrality.

No, that doesn't seem quite right. I think the issue is that people don't understand just how valuable their data is.

Technically, it's posed as an exchange. People "pay" their data to get these services. People so freely give their data/privacy so much that at this point, it's a required part of using most of humanity's technology. The icon exists, it's called the power button, because if you stop paying, they don't provide the service anymore.

Don't get me wrong, it's a terrible state of affairs, and plenty of people don't even realize they're "paying" like this (likely on purpose, data is much more valuable when people don't realise the data is being collected). But there's no competition, no alternate provider of free maps & guidance that is as good as google maps and protects privacy.

So yes, of course. For the same reason that if I could simply poke an icon and receive $1000, of course I would do that.

Sorry, no sorry for your posting.

That wasn't a rant. It was more a failed attempt to spread FUD.

If you have actual information how and when companies regularly bid/paid for articles, you should tell us. Who bid/paid for the articles in the current edition, with the main article about the car industry?

That is a highly privileged position from someone who benefits from the current system, or at the very least isn't actively harmed by it.

I realize I know nothing about your station, but understand that being able to make that statement is inherently privileged, and one millions of people around the world cannot proclaim.

If you have access to benefits and advantages in the system that others do not, then if you are not actively working to improve that system, you are COMPLICIT. Plain and simple.

Nothing happens autonomously or through self-correction. It happens through the blood, sweat, tears, and sacrifice of others (including those as privileged as yourself) while you disengage and offer nothing.

>Become involved. I think the minimum you should do is to vote in every election in your municipality. One of the main causes of the problems in our current system is the atrocious voter turnout rate.

Hot take: voting is not ceasing to be apolitical. Voting is something you do, usually once or twice a year every few years. If you vote and don't take part in any collective action beyond that, you are apolitical.

>HN is not the place for that discussion.

This is typical "radical liberal" cowardice: insist that everyone must stop living apolitical lives, get organized, get involved, agitate, educate, organize... except by involved, you actually mean taking the most individualist, minimal form of political action available, rather than actually being political.

For the record, I send regular dues to the DSA and ACLU, as well as belonging to a local Democratic caucus. Socialism, as it turns out, does indeed take up quite a lot of evenings.

Being actually political, I am spending my interventions in this thread sticking up for the right of others to be apolitical, because frankly, most political organizations are currently extraordinarily hostile to anyone who wants to get properly involved, to be political in the proper way, without agreeing a priori to a party line. And why shouldn't they be, from their own point of view? Everything from the Republican Party to the Neighborhood Progressives maintain the convenient fiction that they are private clubs with a right to run themselves according to their private standards, rather than being, at least aspirationally, collective community assemblies.

All of which is to say: why should you subject yourself to an environment you find unpleasant on a massive and regular basis, while that environment insists you're free to leave at any time? The answer is, as you had said, because that environment also insists that any failure to show up and be part of the private club activities is letting the enemy win.

Sort out your distinctions between private and public institutions.