This is a very easy intelligence trap to fall into, but it neglects internal bad actors that are doing the same things for profit. That interview is structured to set you up into a subtle us vs. them mentality. If you look at what he says and how you feel when you find out (if you agree, which itself is a subtle lever of influence with consistency [Cialdini]), its hard to argue that he isn't doing exactly what he says they do (creating a demoralized state).
You always have to remember the source, and he is not a good source for this. There are much better sources.
We value freedom of speech, because proper communication enables debate which allows us to come to a fuller understanding of certain issues than in the absence of this.
This understanding often allows us to save lives, whereas those mistakes that would never normally be addressed would result in deaths in a system where this doesn't take place.
That being said, you can never have a debate where the number of real people is less than fake people, and they have some motive to amplify or de-amplify what's being said which is ineffable ahead of time.
Where things have gone wrong is in treating corporations as dual entities. When it suits them they are people, when it suits them best they are a corporation, and in some industries when it suits them they act as arms of government without any of the mandates from the constitution, and are immune from legal repercussions.
This is a very easy intelligence trap to fall into, but it neglects internal bad actors that are doing the same things for profit. That interview is structured to set you up into a subtle us vs. them mentality. If you look at what he says and how you feel when you find out (if you agree, which itself is a subtle lever of influence with consistency [Cialdini]), its hard to argue that he isn't doing exactly what he says they do (creating a demoralized state).
You always have to remember the source, and he is not a good source for this. There are much better sources.
We value freedom of speech, because proper communication enables debate which allows us to come to a fuller understanding of certain issues than in the absence of this.
This understanding often allows us to save lives, whereas those mistakes that would never normally be addressed would result in deaths in a system where this doesn't take place.
That being said, you can never have a debate where the number of real people is less than fake people, and they have some motive to amplify or de-amplify what's being said which is ineffable ahead of time.
Where things have gone wrong is in treating corporations as dual entities. When it suits them they are people, when it suits them best they are a corporation, and in some industries when it suits them they act as arms of government without any of the mandates from the constitution, and are immune from legal repercussions.