There are a lot of misunderstandings in this post. I'll try to explain a few of them, which maybe can help realign your whole understanding.
For starters, American insurance has a "maximum out-of-pocket" amount, which means the maximum you can possibly pay for healthcare costs. My plan, from just a regular unknown company doing boring things, has a maximum out of pocket of $5k for an individual. So there's no scenario where I'd ever benefit from spending "a couple tens of thousands of dollars" because even if I spend the whole year in an ICU bed at a cost of millions of dollars to the hospital, I only pay $5,000.
Also, "a lot of people either bankrupt themselves, and end up paying much more than that" doesn't make sense. Declaring bankruptcy means you don't pay the debt, you wouldn't pay a lot AND declare bankruptcy. You'd see the amount was too much to pay, declare bankruptcy, and have the debt wiped out.
Keep in mind that millions of Americans have essentially no assets that aren't protected in a bankruptcy (car, home and retirement accounts are generally safe). It's not like millionaires are going bankrupt from medical costs, it's people who had nothing to begin with declaring bankruptcy when they got hurt while uninsured and going back to zero (instead of negative).
The real problem of the US system isn't the subsidies for the poor, it's the opaque, convoluted billing system between insurance companies, pharmacy benefit managers, and providers. Billions of dollars are siphoned out of the system as profit to insurers and hundreds of millions are wasted on salaries for the bureaucracy of managing the billing system.
> Declaring bankruptcy means you don't pay the debt, you wouldn't pay a lot AND declare bankruptcy. You'd see the amount was too much to pay, declare bankruptcy, and have the debt wiped out.
Bankruptcy isn't a magic get out of debt button. First you have to prove your inability to pay, which generally means not having much in the way of assets. So you probably have to spend a significant amount of money on the debt before bankruptcy is even an option. Then once you have successfully declared bankruptcy it means, aside from a few classes of protected assets (e.x. your primary residence if your sufficiently lucky to be a homeowner) your creditors get to divy up what you have left amongst themselves. THEN the debt is wiped away. It's a last resort that keeps every penny you earn for the rest of your life from going to creditors, not a way to walk away with your assets and lifestyle intact.
I'm not sure that's enough. A few years ago there were some set of websites that wanted less censorship than the main corporate sites (or at least, a different set of censorship rules), I forget all their names now - voat, rumble, gab, parler, etc and people who didn't like the content they saw there just went upstream to cloud providers, app stores, registrars, payment processors, CDNs, ISPs and anywhere else in order to shut them down, cut them off or prevent access.
Tons of sites that failed to perfectly comply with American media conglomerate's interpretation of copyright have been forced offline, had their domain names seized, etc.
There was a period of time where the MPAA and RIAA were routinely suing random teenagers and grandparents for life-destroying sums of money because they used Napster to share a song they liked with a friend.
I think to maintain any sort of real open web, we're going to need some sort of new Tor network that can support billions of users anonymously accessing information which can't be deplatformed and can't result in people getting arrested, losing their jobs, their visas or their funding for saying things that the people in power don't want said.
>I think to maintain any sort of real open web, we're going to need some sort of new Tor network that can support billions of users anonymously accessing information which can't be deplatformed
That already exists. They're called onion sites. What we really need is something that performs about as well as the current Internet, but is stronger against deplatforming: decentralized DNS. It doesn't even need to give memorable names like DNS does, it just needs to be a second, stable addressing layer on top of IP so clients can always find the server.
Unfortunately three letter agencies are going after exit node operators and threatening them in pretty fucked up ways. I think there's also likely some issues with very wide spread use of government owned nodes to be able to deanonymize people
>Decentralization just puts people that run servers as middle men to further impose a censorship agenda with ActivityPub.
Name lookup is not like a social media feed. If a server is censoring, say, TPB, it's plainly obvious, because you'll go to the IP and not get the content you expected. Just move on to the next server on the list until you find one with the up-to-date information.
>Whatever it is it needs to be distributed like BitTorrent.
DNS is already a distributed system like BitTorrent. When you publish an IP update you do it to a single node, which then propagates through the network. The deplatforming problem of DNS is that name assignment is something only central authorities can grant and revoke.
It also makes it very difficult to censor. There is 1 YouTube and thousands of ActivityPub servers and relays that would happily carry all posts through the fediverse regardless if they seize one or two hosts. There are other options as well - that was a bit my point that Medium/X/Bluesky/YouTube - these are designed to harvest engagement in exchange for content. They’re not good for news and certainly not good as an archive.
In theory yes, but in practice, most of the traffic will gravitate to popular servers and the popular ones will be targeted by people that want to censor content and force the gatekeepers to silence content. The ones that don't play along wont matter because they are not that visible.
For years, we've talked about how much of the workforce was "bullshit jobs". HN would be full of incredulous comments from people confused by the headcount at various companies, wondering what all those people were doing every day.
Now we're in the worst case scenario- hundreds of thousands of middle-class "bullshit jobs" are disappearing, but rather than being replaced by a wave of productive jobs (say, in clean energy, non-polluting manufacturing, regenerative agriculture, medical technology, biotech, public transportation infrastructure, housing construction, etc) we're just seeing unemployment, underemployment and government policies that are openly hostile to anything helpful for society.
America could probably still be saved by a "Green New Deal" type of program which spurs massive investment and employment in industries which have positive externalities. Things don't exactly look like that's likely in the next few years, but maybe the 2024 election was the wake-up call the Democrats needed to reorient away from the "woke" social issues and reengage with the average American voter.
Biden did exactly what you are asking for in “massive investment and employment in industries with positive externalities” and your average voter didn’t give a shit.
Maybe I'm too optimistic and we're just doomed, but I think the average voter would have cared more if a handful of things had gone differently.
For starters of course, Biden's rapid cognitive decline and the poor handling of it from the DNC made a mess of everything and prevented a unified platform message to tout the successes of those programs.
Also, the timelines were tough to make work for short-term political gain. There's necessarily going to be a span of time between a law being passed to eg, create tax incentives or loan programs to support building a factory and when those factories are actually built, operational and impacting the economy.
Finally, most of the programs from the Biden administration were hamstrung by trying to jam every left wing and liberal ideal into every program. Instead of saying "Go build a battery factory" they said "Go build a battery factory that's owned by racial minorities and run by women and employs union workers paid at a minimum of 110% of the prevailing wage and provides childcare onsite and doesn't negatively impact local housing affordability and ..." until the whole thing became impossible to implement.
Basically, I think an Ezra Klein type of Democrat could succeed. To be determined if that's the direction the party goes though.
>thousands of middle-class "bullshit jobs" are disappearing, but rather than being replaced by a wave of productive jobs [...] we're just seeing unemployment, underemployment.
Jobs are neither fungible nor mutually exclusive; there is no reason to assume that someone working in a bullshit job would thrive in a non-bullshit job that contributes to society in more productive ways, nor does the existence of bullshit jobs prevent people from working non-bullshit jobs. I hate to say it, but perhaps many people are employed in bullshit jobs because they are not capable of anything more challenging.
"Bullshit job" has a specific meaning that's less about being in a pointless field-of-work (like adtech or many parts of fintech) and more about occupying a pointless role, regardless of the field. David Graeber (the originator of the term) gave the following examples [0]:
— Flunkies, who serve to make their superiors feel important, e.g., receptionists, administrative assistants, door attendants, store greeters
— Goons, who act to harm or deceive others on behalf of their employer, or to prevent other goons from doing so, e.g., lobbyists, corporate lawyers, telemarketers, public relations specialists
— Duct tapers, who temporarily fix problems that could be fixed permanently, e.g., programmers repairing shoddy code, airline desk staff who calm passengers with lost luggage
— Box tickers, who create the appearance that something useful is being done when it is not, e.g., survey administrators, in-house magazine journalists, corporate compliance officers, academic administration
— Taskmasters, who create extra work for those who do not need it, e.g., middle management, leadership professionals
My point stands. Its an incentive game. People work in BS fields because they pay more. People work BS jobs because again: they pay well. There is no incentive to work somewhere else.
We live in a very complex system, beyond any one persons comprehension. Some people think devolved decision making allocating resources to things like, advertising better, is the most efficient way of allocating resources. The invisible hand. How much is bullshit and how much is just beyond your awareness? If you were king and allocating so the work, would it be better? For who? I'm doubtful about bullshit jobs.
I think like, 90% of the crypto trading volume is by people who know it's all a grift, but are hoping to get rich while the music is still playing.
People knowingly buy into pump & dumps, gambling that they're on the early (pump) side and hoping to get out before the dump.
People will happily collect commissions selling products they know are scams or will happily collect management fees for parking investor's capital into grifts.
You'll never get truly everyone to recognize it, and it only takes one sucker at the poker table to keep every seat filled.
> People knowingly buy into pump & dumps, gambling that they're on the early (pump) side and hoping to get out before the dump
I recently heard of a real estate person that wound up buying an entire neighborhood around one of the stadiums for next year's World Cup. The impetus for this decision was to jack up the rates during the tournament, and then sell them off after. Another person thinks renting a bunch of Teslas and then placing them Touro will be another get rich idea during the World Cup. There are all sorts of people that think they are smarter than everyone else and are so confident they just cannot think of any ways their idea will fail.
Man, your anger is just pointed in the wrong direction here.
Be mad at the CEO & hedge fund managers making millions of dollars a year by exploiting the working classes, who will happily move all the jobs overseas tomorrow if they can't hire in America. Not your fellow worker who was born on the other side of an imaginary line.
You're not losing wealth because of the Honduran guy mowing your neighbor's grass. You're losing wealth because the top 1% is accumulating an ever larger share of total wealth.
Can you quote a any specific portion of my comment from which you inferred anger?
Also, do you not understand that reducing an American person’s wages, by having a Honduran guy come into the country and do his job for half the price, then use that to compete with him for an apartment, increasing his cost of living, and reducing the money Big Corp, Inc has to spend on labor, is a direct transfer of wealth out of your pocket, and into their pockets. It’s one of many ways rampant immigration is a war on the middle class, and yes, it is Big Corp, Inc, and the institutions that own it, who are doing this. I am not angry at the Honduran. I am critical of the people who gaslight us into thinking that allowing him and millions like him to come here and work for less money than their American counterparts, is somehow good for us.
People will say Americans don’t want those jobs. But here’s the rub - Americans did want those jobs, back when they paid enough to support a family. Americans also do want trucking jobs, and tech jobs, and medical jobs, and all jobs. And we’re forced to do them for a vanishingly small wage, while we watch our futures disappear, and the hope of ever securing financial security disappears.
> by having a Honduran guy come into the country and do his job for half the price, then use that to compete with him for an apartment, increasing his cost of living
So the immigrants are making half the income, but also paying more for rent? So your thesis rests on the notion that the Honduran is paying like 80% of his income in rent?
This is pretty straightforward economics. The Honduran guy doesn’t need to compete directly with him for housing to contribute to an overall increase in the cost of housing. I assume you are an adult, and since you’re on Hacker News, you’re probably an educated one. It’s crazy to me that I would have to explain such a basic economic concept to an educated adult.
It's crazy to me that you're still blaming the poorest, most exploited, least powerful person in the economy for the problems instead of the people actually responsible.
Since you moved the goalposts after I pointed out the absurdity of suggesting that the underpaid Honduran laborer is also bidding up the price of housing to a broader, indirect impact, I'll go ahead and point out that your argument still fails there. That low-cost labor you're complaining about? That makes construction of housing less expensive. The migrants are building more houses than they're occupying.
Be mad at the top 1%. Be mad at the people who inherited land, wealth and power. Be mad at the people raising your rent and preventing people from building more housing. But don't be mad at some guy just trying to make an honest living doing hard work to stay fed and sheltered because he wasn't born as lucky as you.
> Especially South Park I think desensitized the millennial generation
Desensitized some people, who understood and appreciated the irony, absurdity and inversion of norms.
It hyper-sensitized others, who often doubled-down on the type of authoritarian political correctness that South Park satirized.
There is clearly a huge segment of the millennial generation who don't agree with the South Park "make jokes about everyone and everything" ethos, and instead believe there are numerous individuals, groups, topics and issues which should never be joked about, and feel very offended when someone does.
We have trials so that we make sure we put the bad guys in prison, not random innocent people who were misidentified. They're for the benefit of everyone else, not for the criminal.
yeah we're not talking about that, we are talking about people who were caught in the act of murdering a bunch of people. Everything you gave is false equivalency, this view is widely supported. These people already took way too much from society, they don't need to take any more.
To take an apolitical comparison, think about an ordinary crime- a murder, a rape, an arson, etc.
There is some set of people saying "We know that this man murdered these victims. We think that is very bad. We think the murderer should go to prison so that he doesn't murder more people".
Does a neutral centralist say "Yes, the murderer should go to prison" or do they say "I'm remaining central, I don't want to join the side that is condemning the murderer. I think they hate the murderer. I think the murderer should remain free."
My belief is that a neutral centralist agrees to send the murderer to prison. And if someone supports letting the murderer carry on murdering people, then they can reasonably be said to be supporting the murderer rather than claiming to be a centralist on the murder issue.
There should be a public service campaign telling users something like "Even in the best case scenario, the moderators are weirdos. Most likely they're shills".
People with careers, families, friends and hobbies are mostly not going to spend their limited free time being a digital janitor for an anonymous online community.
People sitting alone in their apartment with nowhere to go and nothing to do and no one to spend time with, however, might find that being a Reddit moderator gives them a hobby, a sense of purpose, and feelings of power, importance or significance that they otherwise never get in real life.
Someone should make a social media site with inverted dynamics- users who only spend a few minutes per day on the site and post once every few weeks should be treated as the influential power users, while the people lurking and scrolling for 10 hours per day are deprioritized.
> Someone should make a social media site with inverted dynamics- users who only spend a few minutes per day on the site and post once every few weeks should be treated as the influential power users, while the people lurking and scrolling for 10 hours per day are deprioritized.
The problem is most users are the "casuals", by a wide margin, in general; and a lot of them are also "weirdos" in different ways. Some of them will be obsessed with a different site; others have serious issues in spite of all the forms of social proof you describe.
I think it's a bit tougher than that. On top of what zahlman said, a lot of "casuals" don't really bring much value to a social media site. If you comment once a year you're not really offering much to the conversation. That's what makes this problem so tricky. The most motivated users are usually motivated by something more than intrinsic motivation. The least motivated users just aren't very good users of the platform. A better incentive structure would help incentivize the "moderately motivated" user.
Was this written in earnest or as an ironic/facetious joke?