But do you go after the CEO of Smith & Wesson? CEO of the private equity company that happened to own them at the time, or their current parent co.? But CEO has little influence, so maybe the board? Major shareholders? *Their* CEOs? (infinite regress begins)
-
On the flipside, I don't think most progressives think criticising Zuckerberg is at all effective at influencing the trajectory of FB, and I don't think they really even know how they'd want Facebook to change. "Breaking it up" sounds fine, though they don't know what that means.
I'm picking on progressives with this example because it's the one I've been thinking about recently. I don't think typical conservatives are any more thoughtful re: efficacy or any more likely to avoid having their attention manipulated by availability
-
-
Perhaps my problem here is my own inability to conceive of a better use of people's attention than campaigning, which requires a focal point (an individual with real power) to attempt to influence.
-
I could just be doing the contrarian thing of constructing reasons for why lazy imitation is actually rational. I might also be insulting the intelligence of the campaigners by assuming they're better off following the herd than trying to think of their own personal strategy.
- 11 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.