As an outsider, the article and top comments reek of desperation.
It's like they are desperate to find some sort of counter balancing logic or faux-dynamism that would serve as a way out without rocking the boat too much or asking uncomfortable questions.
I would disagree, considering the nature of Cato it makes sense for them to keep up appearances. Propaganda can show nuance when needed.
Consider russian propaganda, even they don't openly admit to being genocidal imperialists. On the contrary you often hear narratives around how they are helping Ukrainians and if not for the CIA, Ukrainians and Russians would be enjoying life together as brotherly nations.
I just find it difficult to take something like this seriously:
For more than 40 years, Cato has led the charge for liberty in our nation and around the world. The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization—or think tank—that creates a presence for and promotes libertarian ideas in policy debates. Our mission is to keep the principles, ideas, and moral case for liberty alive for future generations, while moving public policy in the direction of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace.
This reads like some sort of communist propaganda or something similar (especially the bit about "for future generations"). From my perspective, this is pretty typical copytext for Americans who work on corruption enablement. Lots of pomp and tedious bullshit, but when push comes to shove, there is always algniment with oligarch goals.
From what's I've read from Cato, I don't think they actually believe in what they write. Some of the younger analysts (who lack life experience) maybe, and I am sure they keep a few "true believer" types to keep up appearances.
But at the end of the day their copytext about "freedom this" and "freedom that" doesn't pass the basic smell test. A bunch of oligarch funded think tank analysts by definition cannot know anything about freedom.
I am surprised to see Cato institute bring this up. They are pretty much open about their support for oligarchs, authoritarianism and hatred of human rights. I wonder if this is 4D chess of sorts where they worry RFK Jr.'s lack of PR skills and relative volatility could result in some plebs starting to wonder if the whole system is a ruse that plays them for suckers.
That's a much bigger danger to the people who bankroll Cato than some deaths/suffering due to mass viral outbreaks.
I am not American, but I have lived in North America, Europe and Asia.
Typically when a new oligarch gang takes over, their priority is providing benefits to themselves and their senior affiliates. Everything else is cover for the plebs.
It is very likely Schwinn is more of a PR move to provide rhetorical cover for their criminal activities. Schwinn is either in on the scheme and was paid off or is dumb enough to think she can change the system from within or that American institutions will magically resolve everything.
Don't hope for magical solutions.
Strong democratic institutions are good and all, but they have a tendency to fail exactly at the moment that you need them most. And when democratic institutions do fail, the cost (and sacrifice/risk) to return to normalcy increases exponentially.
Yes, I do think (hope?) that will be another migration wave. Hopefully one that can kickstart organic double digit YoY MAU growth as well as getting total MAUs over 100K.
I agree. That's why I've largely moved off reddit and deleted my twitter accounts.
I would even go as far as saying that the architecture of the fediverse with multiple instances, multiple platforms (Lemmy vs. Piefed vs. Mbin) and multiple frontends has the potential to offer more innovation, a better user experience and better content/communities.
But that being said user growth (via a competitive federated model) is necessary.
It would enable expanded coverage of niche topics of interests and other languages. Potentially more funding for development and administration.
But the most important point is that it would allow the global community to take back digital social interaction from the criminal oligarchs, the marketers and shills and undermine nation state digital propaganda and subversion efforts.
I am talking in abstract, aspirational terms, but still, from my perspective this is all part of getting quality content/discussions.
This honestly sounds like a PR/propaganda move. An attempt to dominate the news cycle and provide cover for on-going corruption and oligarch take-over schemes.
I will speculate that for many American companies such activities would be a positive element on a resume.
It may make more sense to have public website listing their names, personal details and their role around working Musk/Trump. This is something they are unlikely to be happy about (even if major American tech companies block the website).
It's hilarious to see reputable right-leaning media publications such as FT and The Economist trying to rationalize Donald Trump's behaviour.
The legal pretext for Trump’s move is questionable, too. He made use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, an executive authority that enables him to respond to extraordinary economic or security threats. Yet that law has not previously been used to enact tariffs. The courts and Congress ought to block them.
Fascinating that FT seems to believe that the US judicial system is going to come to the rescue. I disagree, but what do I know? I am not American (although I have previously lived in North America for a decade).
Mother fucking trump supporters.
How should I state this correctly?
I hope they meet the same fate as they wish on Ukrainians in the territories occupied by the russians.