Agreed. The US is supposedly a democracy, in which people will respect the election made by others. They were proud of its System. Now it looks they have forgotten the principles of democracy as they take it for granted.

The US has become bipolar, the Media has become hysterical, using war propaganda to infer the worst intentions and personal qualities to the adversaries, instead of using Truth using prejudices, condemning people without evidence or counsel for the defense.

Some of the comments I routinely read online now are quite shocking. If only people could put aside their partisan differences for a short time to enact electoral reform. I did a quick Google and found this site: http://www.fairvote.org/about

It explains the electoral system problems: http://www.fairvote.org/problems and a couple of possible solutions: http://www.fairvote.org/solutions

It sounds like a low-tech solution but maybe "ranked choice voting" (a.k.a. proportional representation?) could shift the needle?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electoral_systems_by_c...

Sorry to play exactly the role you are criticizing but my sense of irony implores me to point out that Trump was literally elected by a minority of people who voted, taking second place in the popular vote, so "supposedly a democracy" is a more apt phrase than I think you might have intended.

I don't have a problem with a phone call though. Although I would not have done it personally.

Agreed. The worst of US politics is due to its two party system that invites a two team mentality. Any thinking in terms of us vs them or we vs they invites all kinds of conformance stupidity. I am fully capable of forming my opinions. I don't need a political label or their respective team to help me along with what my personal opinions need to be.

And from an outsider's perspective it's madness.

Case in point: https://www.google.com/search?q=majority+of+Americans+single...

The majority of Americans support single payer healthcare! Coincidentally (except it's not a coincidence at all) out of OECD countries the U.S. has the most amount of completely uninsured citizens (about 1 in 10!): https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=HEALTH_PROT but also pays on average more than anywhere else: http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/graph-of-the-month.ht... including this nugget: “Of all the OECD member states, only in the United States does voluntary health insurance and private funding such as households’ out-of-pocket payments account for more than 50% of the total”

When you realize that what the average person desires in the U.S. makes statistically zero difference on what laws get passed† it's little wonder that many have stopped voting.

And yet, what do the rest of us have to listen to on HN? Partisan bickering and identity politics. Spare us please.

† https://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-u...

Research that I have seen largely suggests that health care is more expensive in the US compared to similar quality health care elsewhere. The primary cause, though not the only cause, for this cost imbalance is largely due to a variety of administrative inefficiencies that have grown out of balance over time. These inefficiencies are economically allowed to exist because many forms of health care are a basic need rather than a luxury want.

Some additional data from the insurance side of things is that about 5% of patients account for about 50% of health care expenses and about 1% of patients account for about 25% of expenses. This is not something to primarily solve for, but it is something the insurance industry must account for.

Solving even for the some of the most basic cost insecurities of health care is hard, because some side of the industry always benefits from a particular angle of each inefficiency. You have to be willing to financially harm a large segment of that industry to make it better for everybody else. Realizing this each segment of that industry (all industries) will maximize identity politics and team identity as necessary to ensure the survival of their collective business interests.

>"As a European I want to make it vocally known that in my opinion US politics ..."

"can we please please focus on tech and policy and put identity politics and tribal politics to one side on HN?"

It's amusing that you start off by establishing your own identity(European) and then ask others to stop engaging in identity politics.

I'm merely pointing out that I'm not from the US so that people know that I don't have a dog in the race. Just so you know I would vote for neither of the two big teams in the US.

What I am trying to do is to say that from a neutral perspective the politicking here is reaching a toxic level. It distracts from the real issues of giant monopolistic tech companies and other such real social ills. You think it's amusing, I think it's downright depressing that I should have to wave a white flag.

I know, my comment was completely rooted in sarcasm :)

I agree with you but I also think given the prominent role FB had in the last US election and the uncertainty of its potential role in the upcoming election its ensures that peoples's emotions on the subject tend to run hot. Cheers.

Ah ok :) That went whooshing by over my head – I've been spending too long in YouTube comment sections recently and have grown unaccustomed to the subtle wit of HNers.

As regards FB, is it a utility or a medium? If it is a medium then they exercise editorial control over the content on their platform and are liable for said content; if it is a utility then they should not censor any content (which they totally do – be it timeline manipulation or shadow-banning or deplatforming). Tech companies want it every which way – they want to behave like a utility but also censor (and monetize) content. Whatever they (FB, Twitter, YouTube, et. al.) are, they're leading an ad-fueled muddled existence. I really think we need anti-trust legislation to chop them into pieces and reboot with some much needed global competition. What we need is effectively an ITU‡ (which was founded in 1865 btw) for the 21st century.

‡ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunicatio...

>"As regards FB, is it a utility or a medium?"

I'm assuming this is the question of are they a publisher or a platform? They seem to want to be both depending on the context and who is asking:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/02/facebook-...

I hate the "identity politics" meme. What is policy that effects humans but "identity politics". From privacy oriented individuals concerned with data collection to social minorities concerned about prosecution any administration is going effect you based on identity.

For racial and sexual minorities, in the current US climate especially, it's hard to avoid "identity politics" when you have literal mobs with torches yelling for your head. And likewise it's hard to not feel a bit betrayed (even if that's completely irrational) when corporations ignore this for the sake of maintaining good relations for profit.

10/10 for putting a serious subject in bunny rabbit ears to trivialize it. There's no good pretending we're not in the middle of a cultural war.

Given that the term "culture war" has no set definition and best I can tell is just a dog whistle for "rally the bigots against <least favorite minority group here>", I'm really at a loss as to what your point is.

Are you concerned changing cultural tides will put you on the wrong side of history? Or is it more of an existential angst about privilege? I think we're in agreement that current trends are very serious, although it appears for opposite reasons.

You haven't a clue what my politics are so stop trying to throw mud hoping some will stick.

My initial comment called for less of this kind of thing on HN but it seems that some of use here will always be at pains to show the rest of the world how on the correct side of history we are. How tedious. What this has got to do with Facebook's trustworthiness score machinery I do not know.

> "What this has got to do with Facebook's trustworthiness score machinery I do not know."

This article posted is immensely relevant for the intersection of tech and political discourse, and in such cases, I would personally prefer to see more discussion on HN.

If the article is about new advances in Golang, sure, I'd hate to see talk of politics in threads.

well said :-)