I think you need to win over the media institutions, which are dominated by the center left to a large degree (I would classify Fox News as center-right). It's a good thing that the far-left new media types are confined to Youtube but I do worry the day when those guys get promoted to CNBC or MSNBC.
I admire Conservative institutions like the Federalist Society, but the problem is that they are so niche. I know that the Daily Wire exists but that is also a mainly a new media thing (and has a terrible name, easily to be ripped to shreds by the online New Left media which so dominates Gen Z consciousness).
This page's footnote links don't work, since they don't have IDs attached. I'm not sure if you understand how to do this in HTML, so I will describe it briefly: most elements can have an "id" setting identifying it, so that a fragment (the part of a URL after a #, pointing to a specific point in a webpage) will point to it. For instance, if a paragraph in a webpage with a certain URL is surrounded with the tags <p id="identifier">text</p>, or a link is made using the tags <a href="http://www.example.com" id="link_id">linked text</a>, then a link to URL#identifier or URL#link_id will go to that specific part of the webpage. On this page, you haven't put in the IDs, so the footnote links don't work; for instance, your first footnote link has the fragment "#_ftn1", but the footnote itself doesn't have the ID "_ftn1" attached, so the link has nowhere to go to.
Your article itself is interesting, & I generally agree that this would be a good response to the problems of the modern era. However, it should be noted that even when the internet makes coordination mechanisms more easily available, people still often will not think to use them. Consider the problem described in https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centralized-web/ — on social media sites like Twitter & Facebook, few people like how the sites are run, but their main advantage is that so many other people are on them, so that most people will not move to a new site unless they can be sure that most of their friends, acquaintances, &c. will also be there, so they generally don't move, & the people most likely to move are those who find the existing site completely intolerable, who tend to include a disproportionate number of trolls, spammers, pornographers, vocal people with unpopular views, & jerks fearing banning or suspension, who in turn will make the new site even less attractive to normal users. The obvious solution is an assurance contract, which the internet makes it relatively easy to set up (though usually without any enforcement mechanism other than trust), but these are rarely used anyway.
I think you need to win over the media institutions, which are dominated by the center left to a large degree (I would classify Fox News as center-right). It's a good thing that the far-left new media types are confined to Youtube but I do worry the day when those guys get promoted to CNBC or MSNBC.
I admire Conservative institutions like the Federalist Society, but the problem is that they are so niche. I know that the Daily Wire exists but that is also a mainly a new media thing (and has a terrible name, easily to be ripped to shreds by the online New Left media which so dominates Gen Z consciousness).
This page's footnote links don't work, since they don't have IDs attached. I'm not sure if you understand how to do this in HTML, so I will describe it briefly: most elements can have an "id" setting identifying it, so that a fragment (the part of a URL after a #, pointing to a specific point in a webpage) will point to it. For instance, if a paragraph in a webpage with a certain URL is surrounded with the tags <p id="identifier">text</p>, or a link is made using the tags <a href="http://www.example.com" id="link_id">linked text</a>, then a link to URL#identifier or URL#link_id will go to that specific part of the webpage. On this page, you haven't put in the IDs, so the footnote links don't work; for instance, your first footnote link has the fragment "#_ftn1", but the footnote itself doesn't have the ID "_ftn1" attached, so the link has nowhere to go to.
Your article itself is interesting, & I generally agree that this would be a good response to the problems of the modern era. However, it should be noted that even when the internet makes coordination mechanisms more easily available, people still often will not think to use them. Consider the problem described in https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centralized-web/ — on social media sites like Twitter & Facebook, few people like how the sites are run, but their main advantage is that so many other people are on them, so that most people will not move to a new site unless they can be sure that most of their friends, acquaintances, &c. will also be there, so they generally don't move, & the people most likely to move are those who find the existing site completely intolerable, who tend to include a disproportionate number of trolls, spammers, pornographers, vocal people with unpopular views, & jerks fearing banning or suspension, who in turn will make the new site even less attractive to normal users. The obvious solution is an assurance contract, which the internet makes it relatively easy to set up (though usually without any enforcement mechanism other than trust), but these are rarely used anyway.
Ah, I fixed the footnotes! Thanks once again.
Thank you. I copied the article over from elsewhere. There's no way to add IDs in substack, I think.
I think technology has made coordination easier, but I agree it is still non-trivial.