2. COVID now adds to disease burden in an unpredictable, perennial way.
3. We maddeningly restrict access to vaccines without considering the wider and long-term costs of disease.
4. Nothing has been done nationally to improve indoor air quality.
5. Vaccines and NPIs synergise.

5. A world where capital then uses that process of mechanization to dispossess labor, to displace skilled workers into jobs where they have reduced value and agency, and to turn the products of that labor to their own ends (mostly, consolidating wealth) rather than to the benefit of humankind.

4. What we do have is a choice between a world in which concentrated capital takes yet one further step along the path of the industrial revolution, appropriating and mechanizing the knowledge that currently resides within labor, as with the Jacquard loom.

You wouldn't do what you do if you weren't more optimistic than me! 😔

Not on prime time, at least. And I think that's worse, and I don't think we disagree on it being worse.
I think you believe that such views would have been aired more, somehow, or equally - and I 100% don't see it happening.
5/5(end)

Example: BBC's coverage of Gaza has been terrible overall. But it did contain "genocide is bad, actually" views, and they got expressed in "prime time". Yeah, with caveats and expressed from the sidelines. But present.
Take the BBC out of the game, and I fear we'd have had no such views at all.
4/5

Which is probably what we disagree on. Having a dominant player that NEEDS to convince about it being impartial is, in my view a BIG/powerful restaint. It sure dull-ifies everything, but ensures that even if marginalised, "unwelcome" truths still get some air time.
3/5

My view is that there currently exists no detectable force able to counteract the power of money. So we'd get a media landscape with 2 types of outlets. "Pretend impartial", which never hurts the hand that feeds it, and "Mail-like". With 5-1% "others".
And that is worse than now.
2/5

Ah, no. I agree on that too. The outlets that successfully pretend (and the BBC does, in one relevant sense, but not all) are THE danger.
What I disagree with is probably: what happens when the BBC disappears. I reckon we get a landscape 99% driven by deep pockets and nothing else.
1/5

[Surely we agree the BBC doesn't produce *only* harm!]

I did, and yeah, dominance + inevitable institutional bias IS real, valid and 100% relevant. I agree with that.
But my mind still can't produce a landscape that looks better without the BBC, even if I agree with your point on the harm the BBC does produce. Hence the question: I'm "blocked".

Possibly a fair point, but: if I roleplay scenarios where the BBC is dead, and try to find one which isn't wishful thinking AND leaves the UK better off, I fail. Regularly.
It can be my own failure of imagination - so I want to ask if you can articulate one and thus help my imagination. Tx!

This connection isn’t articulated often enough.

anyway racism, nostalgia & absurd tech is what we already have now & it's just fascism

Until it breaks and gets A LOT more TLC than what was required initially, I would imagine.