At first, LOTS of “I told you so” comments on social media. These would quickly disappear as the shit really hit the fan.
Lol you think there’s gonna be social media
You do realise that other countries have internet servers too?
Americans might lose access to social media, and the internet in general, but much of the world will still be online.
I don’t think that was the implication. If the US literally devolves into anarchy that is an extremely far gone scenario. It would be globally disruptive. If a meteor erased Europe, the US would also collapse to a lower tier of existence. It’s not just a one way thing or some statement of American supremacy. But it is unlikely that if the US totally collapses, American social media companies would not be able to pay for their Europeans data centers to stay on. So yeah you would probably lose Reddit, Facebook, Insta, and a good big chunk of everything people mean when they say “social media.”
You think there would be no social media left if Twitter, Reddit, Facebook & Co. went down? Using Lemmy?
But they would still exist, they’d just use servers in other countries.
Until the bills for running those servers start piling up. Most/all those companies are headquartered in the US, and it likely wouldn’t be trivial for employees in other countries to suddenly start accessing finances etc. if the US offices are unexpectedly shuttered.
There’s also a huge knowledge drain that could impact the operation of those servers. I work on a devops team that manages web services serving around 15 countries. All but one of my teammates are in the US. We occasionally have to deal with hardware failures in our AWS cloud environments that requires manual intervention to recover from, for example. If that sort of knowledge is lost, or even severely limited, then it can easily lead to cascading failures that makes a site completely inaccessible.
Excellent point
dissolves for whatever reason
As if we all don’t know the reason.
I think the point is the reason didn’t matter for proposed question
That makes sense to me. Haha
America gets a cold, the world gets the flu.
And that is just the economic impact.
War
That’s already happening, specifically because the US exists. De-escalation is more likely, when the US is no longer funding and training terrorists.
The world economy would utterly collapse.
Economic chaos for a little while, and then everyone would just go on with their lives. Economically it would matter of course; America became the richest power after the first world war when all of Europe needed loans to fight their “great war”, causing the greatest transfer of wealth the world had ever seen.
But culturally, I’m betting the number of people who would give a shit if the United States stopped bossing everybody around is far less than they think it is.
The american sense of importance is strongest mostly in their own heads.
Multinational corporations and crime syndicates and others would be at each others throats, nobody would enforce trillions worth of contracts, USD would be meaningless, all govt services would attempt to go private. mass migration attempts.
Well Peace for one moment & another replacement the second moment
The crash of the US market would bankrupt many organisations that rely on US liquidity to exist.
Stay tune. We are headed that way.
We would probably have to learn Chinese instead of English.
That would be pretty nice to see functioning anarchic societies. You are using the wrong term, you mean anomy.
I think we will get a bit of a taste of that in the next years.
OK I read the article two things I have to say. WTF. And how absolutely we have a term for it. But after that it was a great read. But comparing it its still fucked up
I learned a thing, thanks!
We had somalia
Why do you say anomie instead of anarchy is the term OP should be using?
Because most people use the word anarchy for a society without rules and without order. Right of the strongest, 365 days The Purge or something like that. But anarchism isn’t about that, but about a peaceful way of living without hierarchies and rulers. I was sure, that is not, what OP meant.
My question was about OP’s use of the term. Why do you think he misused it? “What do we do if X happens” —> “anomie is different from anarchy” seems like a non sequitur.
As I wrote before, I think OP meant to ask what happens if the US falls into a state of anomy. Nearly everybody who talks about that, uses the word anarchy instead, which is wrong.
Should be clear enough now, I hope.
Why do you think he was wrong? He didn’t say anything that suggested he didn’t know the definition of anarchy.
Don. I’ve put up with your shenanigans for months. Enough. Stop asking stupid vitriolic questions.
There are going to be a lot of wars to redraw boundaries, especially in Africa.
Countries with mutual treaties are going to get attacked. China would definitely take Taiwan and maybe the Philippines.
