When Australians who have attained their eighteenth birthday are handed a voting slip and walk into the privacy of a voting booth the choice of who they vote for is guarded by stringent election laws. The winners of elections are not known until the votes are counted and that system is the cornerstone of our democracy.
There are rules in place to govern the advertising political parties use to influence the vote and that is influenced by whichever political party is holding office when the election is called. The Conservative parties hold office in New South Wales and with a state election due this year they had passed a law restricting the union movement from spending $ 1.28 million on electioneering advertising in the six months before an election. This legislation reduced that figure to just $500,000.
The problem was that unions support just one side of politics. Their influence on the policies of the Australian Labor party is such that many union figures have gravitated to the status of endorsed candidate for the Labor party and now hold office as elected representatives in both the state and Federal governments. The aims of the Labor party and the unions appear nearly synonymous.
This week, that legislation was struck down by the High Court. In its judgement it ruled unanimously that the law breached the implied freedom of political communication in the Constitution. The unions are now free to combine their funds in a collective campaign which the smaller parties think may " drown out " the advertising message they can put to air. This volume would seriously disadvantage independents.
There is another consideration that needs to be taken into account with union influence on the outcome of elections. There is a close association between union leaders and the hierarchy of the Labor party which results in union leaders gaining endorsement for safe seats when they relinquish union office.
The rank and file of union membership covers a wide political spectrum. Their funds collected by the union will be used to support a political party that they may not vote for when their exercise their choice within the voting booths. In fact, the advertising the unions may be using to influence the vote may run diametrically opposite to the thinking of their personal opinions, but they are not asked for that opinion nor given any choice on how their funds are spent.
The unions justify this lack of choice by citing comparison with the big end of town. The aims of major corporations usually mirror the policies of the Conservative parties and they do not shrink from making donations to assist those parties in winning office. The wide spectrum of people working for those entities are not consulted about how those funds are directed.
As with all aspects of politics, how the system works is an emotive issue. We grizzle and grumble about the restrictions in place according to our political views but the outcome is usually decided by the thinking of individuals. The vast majority put their pen to paper and express the choice that determines the outcome.
The common wisdom usually delivers the right choice at that time.
Thursday, 31 January 2019
Wednesday, 30 January 2019
The " Grim Reaper " Beckons !
One of the most respected medical journals in the world is " the Lancet " and it has just released a warning that humanity faces three threats to its long term survival. It brought together a consortium of forty-three of the world's leading experts on agriculture, economics, human rights, which all interplay in the fields of obesity, undernutrition and climate change.
Put simply, what we are doing now is unsustainable. Obesity is responsible for four million deaths each year and 815 million of this worlds population are chronically undernourished. Our inability to manage the food supply means that malnutrition - either undernutrition or obesity - is the biggest cause of ill health and premature death globally.
Here in Australia where we claim an advanced standard of living almost two in every three adults and one in ever four children are overweight, according to the latest Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data. This problem is exacerbated by inaction by the policymakers who are influenced by profit seeking food companies and a lack of demand for change from the public. The soft drink industry has lobbied to water down a move to sugar taxes on soft drinks. A 2017 study found that food lobbyists were potentially swaying health policies in favour of their corporate bottom lines at the expense of public health.
One of the problems facing the world has been drawn to our attention by the global warming people. In recent decades many millions have been rescued from poverty as manufacturing moves into countries with the offer of a cheap labour force. Subsistence farmers earning less than two dollars a day have seen their income increase - and along with that has come a vast change in their diet.
With prosperity comes a demand for - meat. The undernourished forced to subsist on a vegetable diet quickly develop a taste for meat in its many forms and unfortunately agriculture is responsible for about a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions and of these cattle are responsible for half of this total. We simply can not continue to expand the meat industry to meet growing world demand.
The warnings are becoming strident on many fronts. The amount of CO2 in the air is increasing and warming the planet and it is evident that we are unlikely to hold the world temperature to just a 1.5% increase. We will have to learn to live with a warmer world and it is now clear that one of the things that must change is the food we eat.
In all probability we will continue to resist change strenuously until a world food shortage makes a diet change imperative. But if we continue to abuse our bodies by the obesity that is so prevalent in the richer world, at least there will be fewer mouths to feed when that day comes.
Put simply, what we are doing now is unsustainable. Obesity is responsible for four million deaths each year and 815 million of this worlds population are chronically undernourished. Our inability to manage the food supply means that malnutrition - either undernutrition or obesity - is the biggest cause of ill health and premature death globally.
Here in Australia where we claim an advanced standard of living almost two in every three adults and one in ever four children are overweight, according to the latest Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data. This problem is exacerbated by inaction by the policymakers who are influenced by profit seeking food companies and a lack of demand for change from the public. The soft drink industry has lobbied to water down a move to sugar taxes on soft drinks. A 2017 study found that food lobbyists were potentially swaying health policies in favour of their corporate bottom lines at the expense of public health.
One of the problems facing the world has been drawn to our attention by the global warming people. In recent decades many millions have been rescued from poverty as manufacturing moves into countries with the offer of a cheap labour force. Subsistence farmers earning less than two dollars a day have seen their income increase - and along with that has come a vast change in their diet.
With prosperity comes a demand for - meat. The undernourished forced to subsist on a vegetable diet quickly develop a taste for meat in its many forms and unfortunately agriculture is responsible for about a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions and of these cattle are responsible for half of this total. We simply can not continue to expand the meat industry to meet growing world demand.
The warnings are becoming strident on many fronts. The amount of CO2 in the air is increasing and warming the planet and it is evident that we are unlikely to hold the world temperature to just a 1.5% increase. We will have to learn to live with a warmer world and it is now clear that one of the things that must change is the food we eat.
In all probability we will continue to resist change strenuously until a world food shortage makes a diet change imperative. But if we continue to abuse our bodies by the obesity that is so prevalent in the richer world, at least there will be fewer mouths to feed when that day comes.
Tuesday, 29 January 2019
Our Precious Drinking Water !
If the pundits are right, one of the aspects of global warming will be a reduction in the rainfall pattern across Australia. Much of New South Wales at present is either in drought or starting to recover from one of the driest periods in history. The television news has featured huge convoys of hay trucks bringing in feed from other states to try and keep sheep flocks and cattle herds alive in their parched paddocks.
This week Sydney faced the ominous news that the mothballed desalination plant at Kurnell was being reactivated. This is an automatic decision when the level of Warragamba dam falls to sixty percent of capacity. It ticked over 59.9% over the long weekend. The plant was built in response to the Millennium water shortage at a cost of $ 2.3 billion. It ran from 2010 to 2012 during its last operation and ensures that Sydney will never completely run out of drinking water.
A desalination plant take salty water from the sea and runs it through a process called reverse osmosis. What emerges is fresh water that is then treated to reach the standards contained in drinking water guidelines and has a small amount of fluoride added to prevent tooth decay. This plant has the capacity to produce 250 million litres of drinking water per day and that is about one sixth of Sydney's entire needs.
Obviously, the cheapest water is that stuff that falls from the sky and running the desalination plant will increase the average water bill by about thirty-five dollars a year, but that input will make the water stock contained in Warragamba dam last years longer as water rationing reduces wastage by hosing pathways and keeping lawns green.
We are seeing an emerging water problem in the towns of inland Australia. Civilized communities demand reticulated water and it is obvious that our inland river system can not deliver the quantity being drawn for both household use and crop irrigation. As the taps run dry we are facing a problem that global warming is likely to exacerbate.
The original farming families practised water conservation. Their water supply depended on the rain falling on their roof being collected in water tanks and this was carefully used. The family bath routine was often on a weekly basis and water for stock use was often carted from the nearest river. The great Australian artesian basin delivered bore water that eased that problem but today too much is being drawn from that source.
It seems likely that many coastal cities will need to install desalination to meet their water needs because we are well served by the surrounding sea, but inland Australia can not continue to consume water at the present rate and change is necessary. We are fortunate that our tropical far north is served by the annual monsoon and we need to design and construct water retaining schemes so that more of this water can be retained and pumped south to renew the inland river system. It will be costly but that is the only way the inland river system can be made sustainable by way of regulated output and an enhanced flow to serve all the states reliant on the rivers for water.
Such a water retention scheme in the far north could become our premier engineering project for the balance of this century.
This week Sydney faced the ominous news that the mothballed desalination plant at Kurnell was being reactivated. This is an automatic decision when the level of Warragamba dam falls to sixty percent of capacity. It ticked over 59.9% over the long weekend. The plant was built in response to the Millennium water shortage at a cost of $ 2.3 billion. It ran from 2010 to 2012 during its last operation and ensures that Sydney will never completely run out of drinking water.
A desalination plant take salty water from the sea and runs it through a process called reverse osmosis. What emerges is fresh water that is then treated to reach the standards contained in drinking water guidelines and has a small amount of fluoride added to prevent tooth decay. This plant has the capacity to produce 250 million litres of drinking water per day and that is about one sixth of Sydney's entire needs.
Obviously, the cheapest water is that stuff that falls from the sky and running the desalination plant will increase the average water bill by about thirty-five dollars a year, but that input will make the water stock contained in Warragamba dam last years longer as water rationing reduces wastage by hosing pathways and keeping lawns green.
We are seeing an emerging water problem in the towns of inland Australia. Civilized communities demand reticulated water and it is obvious that our inland river system can not deliver the quantity being drawn for both household use and crop irrigation. As the taps run dry we are facing a problem that global warming is likely to exacerbate.
The original farming families practised water conservation. Their water supply depended on the rain falling on their roof being collected in water tanks and this was carefully used. The family bath routine was often on a weekly basis and water for stock use was often carted from the nearest river. The great Australian artesian basin delivered bore water that eased that problem but today too much is being drawn from that source.
It seems likely that many coastal cities will need to install desalination to meet their water needs because we are well served by the surrounding sea, but inland Australia can not continue to consume water at the present rate and change is necessary. We are fortunate that our tropical far north is served by the annual monsoon and we need to design and construct water retaining schemes so that more of this water can be retained and pumped south to renew the inland river system. It will be costly but that is the only way the inland river system can be made sustainable by way of regulated output and an enhanced flow to serve all the states reliant on the rivers for water.
Such a water retention scheme in the far north could become our premier engineering project for the balance of this century.
Monday, 28 January 2019
A Trump Defeat !
Donald Trump had put his reputation as the greatest dealmaker of all time on the line when he refused to sign the money bill that would keep the American government running unless it contained billions to build the wall he wants on the Mexican border.
For thirty-five days - the longest is US history - eight hundred thousand American government workers have been on furlough. National parks and tourist icons such as the Statue of Liberty have been shuttered and rubbish collection has ceased in many cities. The second pay day has passed with no money flowing into worker bank accounts.
Perhaps the key to Trump's abject surrender was the fact that the air traffic controllers at American airports were part of those eight hundred thousand laid off. They are an essential service and by law they must remain on the job but controllers calling in sick began to fray safety and should a plane crash be blamed on controller error the public would be unforgiving.
Trump has opened the money spigot - for just three weeks. If the Democrats refuse him money for his wall he threatens to implement another shutdown or declare a national emergency and take those funds from the defence budget. What is missing from this debate is Trump's promise that Mexico would pay for the wall. Trump has conveniently ignored that key item from his vote winning agenda and is now demanding that the American taxpayers foot the bill.
It seems that a wall between America and Mexico is something most Americans think is not needed - and not wanted. Trump has ignored statistics to incorrectly claim that most of the drugs entering America are smuggled over this porous border and that Mexican immigrants are all rapists, thugs and murderers.
Trump staked his presidency on building that wall and now the Democrats are able to call his bluff. If he takes the course of declaring a national emergency and taking the funds to finish the wall from the defence budget he will be simply reducing America's ability to defend itself in an increasingly hostile world.
Any president who loses the support and goodwill of the vast American defence establishment and the CIA is in peril. Americans are proud of the men and women of the armed services who have shielded the free world under the American nuclear umbrella since the end of the second world war. Taking money from defence must mean reduced defence ability and that would be unthinkable to the American people.
It seems that Donald Trump has managed to catch a tiger by the tail. That promise about building a wall was the pivot that got him elected to office. His inability to deliver will probably be the issue that destroys his tenure as the resident in the White House.
For thirty-five days - the longest is US history - eight hundred thousand American government workers have been on furlough. National parks and tourist icons such as the Statue of Liberty have been shuttered and rubbish collection has ceased in many cities. The second pay day has passed with no money flowing into worker bank accounts.
Perhaps the key to Trump's abject surrender was the fact that the air traffic controllers at American airports were part of those eight hundred thousand laid off. They are an essential service and by law they must remain on the job but controllers calling in sick began to fray safety and should a plane crash be blamed on controller error the public would be unforgiving.
Trump has opened the money spigot - for just three weeks. If the Democrats refuse him money for his wall he threatens to implement another shutdown or declare a national emergency and take those funds from the defence budget. What is missing from this debate is Trump's promise that Mexico would pay for the wall. Trump has conveniently ignored that key item from his vote winning agenda and is now demanding that the American taxpayers foot the bill.
It seems that a wall between America and Mexico is something most Americans think is not needed - and not wanted. Trump has ignored statistics to incorrectly claim that most of the drugs entering America are smuggled over this porous border and that Mexican immigrants are all rapists, thugs and murderers.
Trump staked his presidency on building that wall and now the Democrats are able to call his bluff. If he takes the course of declaring a national emergency and taking the funds to finish the wall from the defence budget he will be simply reducing America's ability to defend itself in an increasingly hostile world.
Any president who loses the support and goodwill of the vast American defence establishment and the CIA is in peril. Americans are proud of the men and women of the armed services who have shielded the free world under the American nuclear umbrella since the end of the second world war. Taking money from defence must mean reduced defence ability and that would be unthinkable to the American people.
It seems that Donald Trump has managed to catch a tiger by the tail. That promise about building a wall was the pivot that got him elected to office. His inability to deliver will probably be the issue that destroys his tenure as the resident in the White House.
Sunday, 27 January 2019
In Praise of " Gongs " !
One of the uplifting things about " Australia Day " is the announcement of who has been granted an achievement award for their services to this nation. What is unique about this honour is that the recipients are nominated by their fellow Australians and each award expires automatically on the death of the award holder.
When the leaders of the Australian colonies met to discuss the possibility of Federation into a distinctly separate nation just before the start of the twentieth century they obviously looked to merry olde England as a possible template. They disliked what they saw ! That land on the other side of the world was a place of privilege, beset by titled people who claimed their elevated status on a hereditary basis. It was beset by princes and dukes, earls and barons and a descending order of titles where people sat in the house of Lords in a law making role without being elected by the men and women who chose the government.
Australia had the advantage of writing the first chapter in its history book and it decided not to follow that line of lineage. In the past thousand years Britain has had a troubled history and much of that involved civil war. The right to wear a crown was often up for grabs and sometimes the loser was executed or banished overseas. The reward for nobles that backed the winning side was elevation in the rank of peerage and a grant of the loser's lands and property. These riches bestowed were held in perpetuity.
It seemed grossly unfair that today the distant heir of someone who simply fought for the winning side a few centuries ago is living a life of wealth and privilege, and on their death that honour will pass to their eldest son. It takes no heed of achievement or even intelligence. By sheer chance such a titleholder today could have the intellect of a village idiot.
In the early years of the Australian nation the highest honour that could be bestowed was a knighthood, but this was wisely limited to the lifetime of the holder. It can still be technically awarded in special circumstances, but today the Australian award for personal excellence is encompassed in the varying grades of the Order of Australia.
A wisely chosen selection committee views nominations from all walks of life, city and country and those overlooked this year may come up for further consideration in future years. It seems inevitable that some time in the future this nation will become a republic. When that happens, the highest honour that is attainable will be for some Australian to win presidential office.
When the leaders of the Australian colonies met to discuss the possibility of Federation into a distinctly separate nation just before the start of the twentieth century they obviously looked to merry olde England as a possible template. They disliked what they saw ! That land on the other side of the world was a place of privilege, beset by titled people who claimed their elevated status on a hereditary basis. It was beset by princes and dukes, earls and barons and a descending order of titles where people sat in the house of Lords in a law making role without being elected by the men and women who chose the government.
Australia had the advantage of writing the first chapter in its history book and it decided not to follow that line of lineage. In the past thousand years Britain has had a troubled history and much of that involved civil war. The right to wear a crown was often up for grabs and sometimes the loser was executed or banished overseas. The reward for nobles that backed the winning side was elevation in the rank of peerage and a grant of the loser's lands and property. These riches bestowed were held in perpetuity.
It seemed grossly unfair that today the distant heir of someone who simply fought for the winning side a few centuries ago is living a life of wealth and privilege, and on their death that honour will pass to their eldest son. It takes no heed of achievement or even intelligence. By sheer chance such a titleholder today could have the intellect of a village idiot.
In the early years of the Australian nation the highest honour that could be bestowed was a knighthood, but this was wisely limited to the lifetime of the holder. It can still be technically awarded in special circumstances, but today the Australian award for personal excellence is encompassed in the varying grades of the Order of Australia.
A wisely chosen selection committee views nominations from all walks of life, city and country and those overlooked this year may come up for further consideration in future years. It seems inevitable that some time in the future this nation will become a republic. When that happens, the highest honour that is attainable will be for some Australian to win presidential office.
Saturday, 26 January 2019
The Chicken ? Or the Egg ?
The news that " affordable housing " is going to be concentrated in the Sydney suburb of Waterloo is alarming. There is a distinct impression that Waterloo is going to look something like Manhattan with seven forty story towers and another twelve climbing to thirty-two stories - and all this crammed into just twenty-two hectares. That delivers about half the parkland and recreational space of that other concentrated living area - Green Square.
The rationale is simple. It is more economical to provide electricity, water and sewage to an existing inner suburb than to create new suburbs on the city perimeter and Waterloo will be served by the new train and tram services that are part of our transport expansion. These are bold experiments but caution is urged because similar moves have backfired badly in other world cities.
Our television news shows rioting in the streets of Paris - the " City of Light ". The French built mass affordable living towers on the city perimeter and these were quickly snapped up by the poor and immigrant communities. They are referred to as " Banlieue's " because that is the French word for " suburb " and they have become centres for discontent. The Banlieue is now synonymous with that other emotive word -" unemployed ", and both are associated with that other dreaded word - " Terrorists ". We would be wise to remember the public disdain for those existing public housing towers built decades earlier in Waterloo.
There is a growing school of thought that contends that Sydney is simply becoming too big. We are ever encroaching on valuable farmland on our perimeters and despite vast new road systems the daily commute traffic flow is consistently slower. It has been the dream of city planners for years to accelerate movement out of the city and into the surrounding country towns where a more relaxed style of life is possible. The stumbling block is job opportunities. The beating heart of this city is its job situation and we have an unemployment rate at present of just 4.3%.
There is no doubt that many city people would be attracted to life in a country town if affordable housing was coupled with the reality of job opportunities offering. It seems to be closely associated with that old " chicken and egg " conundrum. Which came first ?
If we build affordable housing in country towns, will the people come ? Or must industry be in place with job opportunities offering before that move will be considered ? There is a third option. What about the fast transport option that would allow country living to be combined with city job opportunities ?
Just such an opportunity exists to the south of Sydney. The towns of the south coast have no rail service past Nowra and are basically connected by a single lane each way blacktop with a shocking accident record. They are in that moderate temperature zone where proximity to the sea avoids frosts in winter and the sea breeze delivers relief from the ever increasing summer heat. Wollongong, Shellharbour, Kiama and Nowra are fast expanding and land is available to expand the existing settlements further down the coast.
This Waterloo development is long term and will proceed over decades. Perhaps the capital intended to create Sydney's " Banlieue " might be better directed at attracting people and industry to where a more relaxed lifestyle is still a possibility.
The rationale is simple. It is more economical to provide electricity, water and sewage to an existing inner suburb than to create new suburbs on the city perimeter and Waterloo will be served by the new train and tram services that are part of our transport expansion. These are bold experiments but caution is urged because similar moves have backfired badly in other world cities.
Our television news shows rioting in the streets of Paris - the " City of Light ". The French built mass affordable living towers on the city perimeter and these were quickly snapped up by the poor and immigrant communities. They are referred to as " Banlieue's " because that is the French word for " suburb " and they have become centres for discontent. The Banlieue is now synonymous with that other emotive word -" unemployed ", and both are associated with that other dreaded word - " Terrorists ". We would be wise to remember the public disdain for those existing public housing towers built decades earlier in Waterloo.
There is a growing school of thought that contends that Sydney is simply becoming too big. We are ever encroaching on valuable farmland on our perimeters and despite vast new road systems the daily commute traffic flow is consistently slower. It has been the dream of city planners for years to accelerate movement out of the city and into the surrounding country towns where a more relaxed style of life is possible. The stumbling block is job opportunities. The beating heart of this city is its job situation and we have an unemployment rate at present of just 4.3%.
There is no doubt that many city people would be attracted to life in a country town if affordable housing was coupled with the reality of job opportunities offering. It seems to be closely associated with that old " chicken and egg " conundrum. Which came first ?
If we build affordable housing in country towns, will the people come ? Or must industry be in place with job opportunities offering before that move will be considered ? There is a third option. What about the fast transport option that would allow country living to be combined with city job opportunities ?
Just such an opportunity exists to the south of Sydney. The towns of the south coast have no rail service past Nowra and are basically connected by a single lane each way blacktop with a shocking accident record. They are in that moderate temperature zone where proximity to the sea avoids frosts in winter and the sea breeze delivers relief from the ever increasing summer heat. Wollongong, Shellharbour, Kiama and Nowra are fast expanding and land is available to expand the existing settlements further down the coast.
This Waterloo development is long term and will proceed over decades. Perhaps the capital intended to create Sydney's " Banlieue " might be better directed at attracting people and industry to where a more relaxed lifestyle is still a possibility.
Friday, 25 January 2019
The Facebook Threat !
When Mark Zuckerberg came up with the idea that became Facebook his intentions were probably honourable. He certainly intended for it to make money but it caught the public imagination and quickly spun our of control. It attracted so much money that its monopoly status is being preserved by buying up any new ideas that emerge that might just be the " next big thing ".
There is an amazing correlation with the early days of the American nation. A half dozen families achieved amazing wealth when they gained control of the oil, railroad and steel industries. The names Rockefeller and Carnegie were almost as powerful as the government in Washington. Oil brought kerosene lights to the homes of the nation, the railroads opened up the interior and steel replaced brick to introduce the skyscraper era to American cities.
The government realised that too much power was in too few hands and legislated to breakup these monopolies. In this world of today that " robber baron " creed has re-emerged in the form of Facebook and Google.
We have long defended the free press as the guardian of our civil liberties, but now newspapers are in decline. Facebook has replaced the press as our news source and this has introduced what we term " fake news ". The world was quick to learn that people avidly read news that agrees with their own point of view and Facebook quietly removed any contrasting arguments. Foreign governments were quick to seize this opportunity for mind control.
The emergency of Twitter seemed a threat to Facebook, but it was quickly brought under Facebook control. We have learned the manipulative power of data to set markets in the direction of their choice and Facebook delivers an inexhaustible flood of data that is freely given by its users. The people who control Facebook now have the power to direct market trends and to influence the outcome of government elections.
This divergence of money away from the press is to our detriment. Journalism was the creative force that exposed wrong doing and that diversity of views helped us form our own opinions. We are now at the mercy of mind manipulation by outside forces cleverly using fake news in such quantities that we accept its veracity.
Google is the other entity that is suppressing competitors and has emerged as the world's premier search engine. What we see and learn is what Google chooses to make available. The power this delivers is enhanced by the ability to use its vast wealth to buy any likely competitor before it fully emerges.
It is essential that world governments react to breakup these monopolies and introduce an element of competition between their components. We are fast entering the dangerous situation where Facebook fully controls the news flow and Google directs our attention in directions that suit the view of its management.
We have created monsters with the ability to direct the way we think - and the way we vote. That is not necessarily in our best interests !
There is an amazing correlation with the early days of the American nation. A half dozen families achieved amazing wealth when they gained control of the oil, railroad and steel industries. The names Rockefeller and Carnegie were almost as powerful as the government in Washington. Oil brought kerosene lights to the homes of the nation, the railroads opened up the interior and steel replaced brick to introduce the skyscraper era to American cities.
The government realised that too much power was in too few hands and legislated to breakup these monopolies. In this world of today that " robber baron " creed has re-emerged in the form of Facebook and Google.
We have long defended the free press as the guardian of our civil liberties, but now newspapers are in decline. Facebook has replaced the press as our news source and this has introduced what we term " fake news ". The world was quick to learn that people avidly read news that agrees with their own point of view and Facebook quietly removed any contrasting arguments. Foreign governments were quick to seize this opportunity for mind control.
The emergency of Twitter seemed a threat to Facebook, but it was quickly brought under Facebook control. We have learned the manipulative power of data to set markets in the direction of their choice and Facebook delivers an inexhaustible flood of data that is freely given by its users. The people who control Facebook now have the power to direct market trends and to influence the outcome of government elections.
This divergence of money away from the press is to our detriment. Journalism was the creative force that exposed wrong doing and that diversity of views helped us form our own opinions. We are now at the mercy of mind manipulation by outside forces cleverly using fake news in such quantities that we accept its veracity.
Google is the other entity that is suppressing competitors and has emerged as the world's premier search engine. What we see and learn is what Google chooses to make available. The power this delivers is enhanced by the ability to use its vast wealth to buy any likely competitor before it fully emerges.
It is essential that world governments react to breakup these monopolies and introduce an element of competition between their components. We are fast entering the dangerous situation where Facebook fully controls the news flow and Google directs our attention in directions that suit the view of its management.
We have created monsters with the ability to direct the way we think - and the way we vote. That is not necessarily in our best interests !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)