[gruez]

>I don't think it's the demographics that have changed, but the state of the internet, and the awareness that big tech's stranglehold over our media is a problem.

The less charitable interpretation is that interest groups are just harnessing the current kneejerk reaction for anything anti-"big tech" to serve their own interests. See also: people being theoretically in favor of affordable housing, but are also against "greedy developers" and "luxury condos" so nothing gets built.

[anigbrowl]

Why not just build affordable housing instead of luxury condos, you're creating a weird false equivalence.

[gruez]

Because in practice that just means nothing gets built at all. It's like having a food shortage but not wanting to buy/grow more food unless it's fair trade, organic, permaculture certified, non-gmo, certified kosher/halal, and cruelty free. All of those are laudable goals, but if the combined effect is that nothing gets done, that's counterproductive.

[mcv]

But that is a choice. You could also build the affordable housing and grow the sustainable food. But then you have to decide not to let it be done by people who don't want to do that, but want to build luxury condos instead.

[anigbrowl]

That's just another false equivalent. People want affordable housing. Luxury condos are clearly Not That. Your food analogy is backwards. You're actually saying that people want affordable food, but object to building more luxury restaurants, so that nobody gets fed at all.

[gruez]

>People want affordable housing. Luxury condos are clearly Not That

Luxury condos increase supply, driving down the price of all housing. It's economics 101.

>You're actually saying that people want affordable food, but object to building more luxury restaurants, so that nobody gets fed at all.

The point is that all the stipulations people have on top eg. "organic" makes it harder to create more supply.