I’ve been noodling this argument ever since November, and I am pretty confident now that America has a fragile, asymmetric information economy.
Most Americans on the right live in a protected information market. I am not talking about media bias — both sides have that. The issue is deeper: on the right, the marketplace of ideas has been captured. There's no free trade between ideas, only ‘subsidized’ narratives and ‘tariffs’ on dissent. That’s how Trump — or anyone like him — thrives. Realists, by contrast, get priced out.
This isn’t culture war stuff, this is structural failure. The traditional metaphor of American free speech — the Holmesian "marketplace of ideas" — breaks down when one side captures the market.
There is no competition of ideas when there is no fair fight.
If you’ve got a couple of million bucks to spend, my guess is start buying up and supporting local news channels in the rust belt, and then let them work on whatever they want to work, as long as they can show actual independence.
Or perhaps gift people subscriptions to things like groundnews or something. I don’t know if theres any science that shows it effectively diversifies information consumption of its users.
I don’t know what the napkin math is for a tipping point, but I suspect its not as expensive as litigating an entire administration.
Interesting theory. I'd venture that there is an element of selection happening though rather than just a structural flaw. i.e. The people aren't so much trapped in this captured market but rather actively opt in.
I believe you would be right. The structural case is made in Network Propaganda. One of the authors has another paper/article (1) that summarizes this and supports your point. I don’t see any sustainable future for America, or any other nation, unless this market is rebuilt.
To argue the case - while there is definitely an aspect of choice, opt-in matters less if your options are limited.
Most Americans on the right live in a protected information market. I am not talking about media bias — both sides have that. The issue is deeper: on the right, the marketplace of ideas has been captured. There's no free trade between ideas, only ‘subsidized’ narratives and ‘tariffs’ on dissent. That’s how Trump — or anyone like him — thrives. Realists, by contrast, get priced out.
This isn’t culture war stuff, this is structural failure. The traditional metaphor of American free speech — the Holmesian "marketplace of ideas" — breaks down when one side captures the market.
There is no competition of ideas when there is no fair fight.
If you’ve got a couple of million bucks to spend, my guess is start buying up and supporting local news channels in the rust belt, and then let them work on whatever they want to work, as long as they can show actual independence.
Or perhaps gift people subscriptions to things like groundnews or something. I don’t know if theres any science that shows it effectively diversifies information consumption of its users.
I don’t know what the napkin math is for a tipping point, but I suspect its not as expensive as litigating an entire administration.