Anyone who isn't concerned about a handful of profit-first, multinational corporations deciding what most people get to see online isn't paying attention. Concern trolling about "extremists" serves the same function as the moral panic about child abuse materials ("kiddy porn") did in the #copywars PR campaign against p2p. Once erected with these rationalizations, the #BigBrother machine always targets the #anticapitalist left far more than the #whiteSupremacist right and it's already happening.
The end game is that we're back in the TV era where corporate consensus decides what the majority of the public get to think is true, and only a handful of people know about and have access to the means to do independent fact-checking. Scientists started trying to raise awareness about climate change in the 1970s. Why did the issue only gain mainstream credence since the end of the 1990s, and mainly in the last decade?
> they can make more money selling energy-saving lightbulbs?
Are you telling me the startups selling those suddenly had more discursive power than the 100 corporations (fossil fuel miners etc) who stood to lose from the change of public opinion? How? I think you're reversing cause and effect here.
@strypey it was startups? Interesting. I guess I was born too late to remember exactly what was happening back then, but what I remember is that I learned about these environmental issues from mainstream TV, and later from school. And even at school, the Science textbook didn't push as much an emphasis on environment protection as the foreign language textbooks, especially English one.
Also, before LED lightbulbs became a thing, the CFLs were too yellow-ish and pretty dim, especially for the first several minutes after turning them on. So it was a pain when EU banned sale of regular lightbulbs for consumer purposes.
@strypey so to me it appeared that someone powerful really wanted everyone to use those inferior and more expensive CFL lightbulbs.
I guess I was wrong.
@Wolf480pl again, I think you're reversing cause and effect. Through the 1980s and 90s, activism and science education battled against the fossil fool propaganda pushed through the TV networks. The net tipped the balance against the TV propaganda and accepting anthropogenic climate change became the mainstream position. So some companies saw the writing on the wall and invested in products like CFL that could be marketed as "low carbon".
Not anymore. I'm not postulating anything about causes or effects or why something happened. In the last 2 posts, I only described my experiences from around 2000-2015 (before that I was too young to remember).
I'm entirely open to any reasonable explanation of what actually happened, and why my experiences were as I described.
So, what actually happened?
Why did I learn about environmental issues (not just climate change) from TV and textbooks?
What were these startups that pioneered environment-friendly technology?
OTOH the climate change politics of the modern era has the distinct smell of astroturf. Nobody's fighting back...
But why? Perhaps knowing people would protest pollution, they created a controlled opposition which conveniently avoids targeting specific polluters?
> Nobody's fighting back...
What about #ExtinctionRebellion? The #StandingRock occupation? The grassroots campaigns all around the world against fracking, new coal mines, and offshore oil exploration? Sure, there's astroturf trying to bend climate change responses in profitable (and/or ineffective) ways. But the vast majority of the astroturf is still from "skeptics" funded by Koch et al
@cjd I'm really not sure what you're arguing for here. If your claim is that "nobody's fighting back" against climate change activism, that's so far off the mark it's not even wrong. Standing Rock was climate change activism (amongst other things) and as you say, there was plenty of fighting back against that. There are whole corporate-funded conferences dedicated to blowing smoke about climate change being a hoax, or not being a serious problem, or mitigation being too expensive.
@Wolf480pl what kinds of TV shows were teaching you about climate change in this period? Science education programs maybe? I bet it wasn't the news or primetime current affairs shows or documentaries.
@strypey IIRC it was the news and a cartoon called "Raindrop".
@Wolf480pl was the news presenting climate scientists and "skeptics" head-to-head, as if their arguments and evidence were of equivalent quality? There are plenty of ways to cover an issue while subtly misdirecting people. That's not impossible on the net (centralised, algorithmic "social media" recreates those dynamics of TV to some degree), but online it remains a lot quicker and easier to cross-reference across multiple newsrooms, and check primary sources.
@Wolf480pl in the 1990s most propertarians (pro-capitalist "libertarians") and rationalists thought climate change was a socialist hoax or a luddite superstition. The ability the net have them to go right back to the peer-reviewed literature on the subject, without leaving their computers, means these attitudes are now much rarer amongst these groups. TV didn't and couldn't do that.