Way, way too many websites. I have to research all of them just to use one? I have choice paralysis! The corporations are right, I shouldn’t be trusted to make decisions for myself, and the internet should be like cable.

  • Sunshine (she/her)
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 days ago

    This is literally what happens when people defend first-past-the-post! “More than 2 viable choices at the ballot box is scary!” “I need my corporate politicians to protect me from using my brain”

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      I’m no fan of FPTP, but that point doesn’t apply here. Democrats have consistently supported Net Neutrality.

      Net Neutrality was first legislated by the Democratic majority in the FCC in 2015. Then it was repealed by the Republican majority, championed by Pai and Carr in 2018. It was reinstated in 2024 when the Democrats regained majority of the FCC.

    • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      Can’t say I’ve ever seen anyone defend the system in play, just recognizing that it exists and until it’s changed in whatever means possible that playing the protest/spoiler is likely to make things worse.

        • tomenzgg@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          It shouldn’t be discounted, either, that they’re willfully abusing perception.

          It’s like when they argue that voter suppression or them winning without a majority of the vote is actually what was intended because that’s why we’re a Republic and not a direct democracy.

          Like, I don’t doubt that there were founders who would be sympathetic of depriving certain groups the vote (after all, they hadn’t given them the vote in the first place for that very reason) but “tyranny of the majority” very much wasn’t meant to mean outright suppression like through a carceral system.

          It meant boosting minority opinions so you’d have to actually address and debate with them rather than rushing past.

          But they know most people won’t have familiarity with the concept so they argue that their suppression of representation is actually a good thing, though I cannot believe anyone who’s passingly familiar with these concepts could say that and truly mean it.