I was in the same position until a few weeks ago; mainly used YT for podcasts, downloading videos to watch while travelling etc.

If you have an Android phone, get the NewPipe app from F-Droid. It has pretty much everything that YT Premium offers, but free. It’s been working really well for me.

Sure, real economists don’t explicitly hold those views. But the kinds of metrics and models liberal economists are fond of using basically lead to that flowchart.

I appreciate you trying to answer a question in good faith, but you’re conflating ‘liberal’ with ‘vaguely left-leaning’, and none of what you’ve said makes any sense outside of current US political ‘discourse’ where ‘Liberal’ means ‘slightly left-wing’.

What you describe as liberal economics is closer to Keynsianism or Social Democracy.

In economics, the ‘Liberal’ school of thought is generally against regulation and interference in the market, seeing it as being ‘self-regulating’. In economic terms, Reagan and Thatcher were Liberals - hence them being associated with ‘Neoliberalism’.

The whole thing you said about Capitalism tending towards monopoly is actually a very Marxist/Socialist idea - Liberal economic theory tends to argue that monopolies form because of government and that they wouldn’t occur in a truly free market (although its more nuanced than that, there’s major disagreements over ‘Natural Monopolies’ etc. within the Liberal school). Source: look up any Liberal economist/thinker and their view on monopolies. E.g Friedman, J.S Mill.

Capitalism being an economic system doesn’t make it apolitical. ‘In theory’ Liberalism and Capitalism are very very closely intertwined, it’s not implicit, it’s absolutely explicit if you read any Liberal political or economic theory.

Economics is inherently political.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neoliberalism/#Libe Sections 3 and 4 of this are a decent starting point.

Also the idea of slightly changing our voting systems as the way to drive change is quite hilarious. Sure, moving away from FPTP would probably help a bit, but it’s not like countries with other systems are doing fine. These issues are more fundamental. And historically, fundamental change has never occured through small technical adjustments to political systems.

Love my USDDB cables, the built-in kettle function is a big plus 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

I think the difference here is paying for a single newspaper vs having to get recurring subscriptions that are a pain to cancel. With print media, if I want to check multiple sources’ take on an issue, I could go out and buy 5 different newspapers, and that’s it. But with online news, I’d have to spend like an hour cancelling all the subscriptions after I’m done and if I forget to cancel any i’ll realise when I’m down like £50 6 months later.

Also don’t like having to enter personal details into so many websites.

Thank god for Archive.org.

I wonder why no news company has tried the ‘buy today’s digital newspaper for £1 and that’s that’ approach. I could be wrong and maybe someone has, haven’t seen it though.

Like tears in rain

Modern billionaires developing that Roman Emperor urge to fight in the Colloseum (as long as they’re never in any actual danger of course). Absolute joke

Feel you with being unable to keep up. The thing is, most of the outrage is artificial; have to remember the incentive structures of media etc.

If its any consolation, I reckon the average person being unable to keep up with stuff during periods of rapid change has always been the case historically. Most conversations, discourse, etc that have shaped society have been either among small groups of powerful people motivated by various interests, or stuff like pamphlets, polemics nailed to church doors, talking points, buzz words. This riles people up and is effective at getting stuff done but not effective at all at having an actual conversation. So the average person just gets swept up in the tide.

I am not an expert in political history by any means but I can’t think of a single example in which people just talked to eachother to decide the direction of society. Seems like it has always been ‘waves’ or ‘trends’ or ‘forces’ and then ‘backlashes’ driving things. Historical developments and transformative change seems to just ‘happen’ and suddenly you live in a fundamentally different world.

Like, did we ever have a conversation, as ‘a society’ (if it can even be considered a singular entity) which resulted in the decision to put big tech corps in charge of running the main platforms we use to communicate with eachother?

Of course not; it’s like we woke up one day and suddenly heads of state are issuing diplomatic communications via goddamn Twitter so we all just use that now. Again, not a historian, but I think it was a similar thing with major historical shifts like industrialisation etc.

And then we get hit by the consequences, and are totally unprepared, as if they were unexpected. A small group of random people having a conversation over drinks could have anticipated pretty much every single issue we now have with big tech running our social platforms, and probably could have anticipated many of the pitfalls of industrialisation or globalisation (not saying these don’t have positives; but we’re dealing with the pitfalls now so it is what it is).

I think this kind of approach to discourse and societal decisionmaking is very vulnerable to being overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information in the modern world.

I recently read ‘The Word for World is Forest’ by Ursula Le Guin, and am reminded of this part in the introduction: “They have built a system of inter-personal relations which, in the field of psychology, is perhaps on a level with our attainments in such areas as television and nuclear physics.” (Context: the Senoi people of Malaysia).

We haven’t developed our ‘social technology’; we’re operating on the same kinds of social tech in the past, which is simply not equipped to deal with a connected globalised world. I think this extends to stuff like academia and journalism. We desperately need an approach to making sense of the world in a calm and thoughtful manner; but since our social tech can’t really facilitate that, we’re doing… whatever it is we’re doing rn.

And coming back to capitalist incentive structures: inflammatory stuff generates more engagement, ad revenue etc.

I am holding out hope that smaller, FOSS alternatives which do not have such incentives will lead to better conversations

This is entirely my observation but the conversations I’ve seen on this platform seem more like actual conversations vs the almost-artificial ‘talking past eachother instead of talking to eachother’ I used to see on Reddit and Twitter.

Sorry for the ramble. My first post on any public-facing online thing since I quit posting on random forums like 15 years ago. I always lurked on Twitter and Reddit but feared that actually posting and/or getting into arguments would drive me insane so avoided it. Hello everyone; let’s be humane to eachother and enjoy eachother’s company. There’s enough alienation in the world as it is. Thanks for reading to whoever is still reading.