[andrewmutz]

These days the policy positions of each party are hashed out on social media by non-experts. For both the democrats and the republicans, instead of any sort of research or experts driving public policy decisions, it's instead the things that resonate with your average person's feelings as they scroll through their feed and get engagement.

The end result is of course populism. Each election cycle gets us closer to the policy positions of the Republicans being "Immigrants are bad" and Democrats being "Billionaires are bad".

We know where populism leads, and we've seen it for decades in south america. In a few decades, we will get to choose between the populist far left and the populist far right. Policy will get crazier and crazier and measurable societal outcomes will stagnate and perhaps go backwards.

This will continue as long as social media is the primary form of entertainment in the US.

[TheAceOfHearts]

Maybe these researchers and experts should show up and present their suggested positions. People are tired of ivory tower proclamations, and most fundamentally, you need to reach people where they're at. That's just the kind of information ecosystem that we're living in, so people need to adapt.

Unfortunately, ignoring the public sphere and pretending that professionals are above such things is why we're now stuck with someone like Robert Kennedy Jr running HHS. This guy grew enough of a following and movement to reach a position of power and influence and he was barely challenged by experts all along the way.

[andrewmutz]

Experts post on social media all the time, but their voices are not given any weight beyond that of people who aren't experts on the topic.

RFK jr running HHS is the wave of the future. Unfortunately, we will continue to have non-experts who generate high engagement content running policy decisions more and more in the future.

[bigbadfeline]

> we will continue to have non-experts who generate high engagement content running policy decisions more and more in the future.

I don't see why you'd assume that only non-experts will generate high engagement content.

I don't disagree but such a sweeping assumption surely needs some argumentation and elucidation. Understating the mechanics of this quite unnatural state of affairs is vastly more valuable that the mere observation of its existence.

All I've seen to date are appeals to human nature but that's a highly misleading line of reasoning that creates more confusion about both human nature and the forces driving content creation.

[M95D]

There are only 24h in a day and each one chooses how to invest that time.

Experts invest time in becoming experts in their field. Youtubers invest time in generating high engagement content and attracting more viewers. Can't have both.

[sarky-litso]

The article is saying the exact opposite of this e.g. | three days ago, it came out that Maryland Governor Wes Moore, a 2028 candidate, | made sure to have lobbyists for the American Gas Association in the room when | he interviewed for open seats to the state Public Service Commission

[RickJWagner]

Your point is valid.

Last election cycle, the incumbent president was pushed out of the race, largely initiated by an actor that lacks a college degree.

[seba_dos1]

So far you get to choose between moderate right and far right, so at least there's still a long way there.

[bigbadfeline]

Not really - that would only be true if far right and far left were far apart in anything other than superficial rhetoric. The structure and operation of power are virtually the same for both.

[palmotea]

> These days the policy positions of each party are hashed out on social media by non-experts. For both the democrats and the republicans, instead of any sort of research or experts driving public policy decisions, it's instead the things that resonate with your average person's feelings as they scroll through their feed and get engagement.

That would actually be a major improvement over what we have. Right now public policy decisions seem to get hashed out by nutjob activists on social media, not "average people."

Also the "research[ers and] experts" need to own up to their own responsibility for this situation. Right now we live in a populist moment because they got caught up in their own ideology and group-think, which created an opening for someone like Donald Trump. They should have seen the problems he used to build his support, and came up with effective solutions for them.

[thrance]

What experts? You mean the overpaid consultants who dragged the democrats into pathetic ineffectiveness and made them lose against an obviously retarded manchild?

> The end result is of course populism. Each election cycle gets us closer to the policy positions of the Republicans being "Immigrants are bad" and Democrats being "Billionaires are bad".

Except immigrants have nothing to do with how bad things are going, while billionaires (and what they represent) are effectively the architects of this situation. "Billionaires are bad" is an oversimplified, but ultimately correct analysis of the issues of our time.

FDR basically saved the country from fascism with his "robber barons are bad" campaign. I deplore the fall into populism just as much as the next guy, but this is what the situation calls for. Social networks only play a minor part in all of this. Material conditions are degrading, and unrest will only grow until they start improving.

This country's governance has been subservient to capital, basically forever, and unchecked private power is now eating it from the inside. This is what must be fixed if this republic is to have any future, and the populist left is the only band of the political spectrum that at least acknowledges the issue.

[vkou]

Ah, but that same populist left is inconvenient to the valuation of my RSUs, so we're going to have to put a cork in it, maybe we can revisit it once I have enough[1] money.

---

[1] I will never have enough money.