If people had to actually effort to share knowledge - as we evolved to having to do, to excel at story telling to pass on knowledge through generations - then that cost would prevent the kind of rapid indoctrination and rallying people based on hate, emotional and irrational thinking - thought that hasn't been checked with critical thinking.
Process of indoctrination can only exist when fear is constantly present, suppressed-repressed reaction - emotional or otherwise - when ego mind guard is constantly active; Ekhart Tolle in The Power of Now references this and the insanity that this leads to.
The convergence of these different factors in the last decade, including automation taking away jobs from Americans who want to work - along with regulatory capture that has allow bad policy and ability to pay $0 in taxes like Amazon - leading to societal unrest, increased suffering, allowing for a democracy that can be easily destabilized.
We see this now though - so we can steer the ship, leading to America once again becoming strong - an economic powerhouse, recapturing and rerealizing the rhetoric of American patriotism. Once these systems rebound with new guidance, the innovation of free minds directing resources efficiently toward health - toward being free and standing strong for our brothers and sisters, local and global - will lead to an unstoppable force - which hopefully will not require conflict to hold or expand the line of peace as different nations choose to adopt these systems for themselves - with our support and guidance.
What about the explicit intentional policy?
> along with regulatory capture that has allow bad policy and ability to pay $0 in taxes like Amazon
Don't you mean the lack of?
Re: Bad policy - certainly there is policy that was crafted to benefit industry at the cost of society, the environment, surely lacking good policy. Like why is VAT in existence in ~160 countries around the world but not in the US? Do you consider that lacking of policy? That's more regulatory capture leading to politicians being elected who protect the interests of those who helped pay to get them voted in.
It increase impact of money. Who have more money more likely to win.
I'm not trying to be mean, just pointing out an unintended consequence of such a system.
(This would do nothing about money buying influence — as long as the donors are known, their wishes would be carried out by at least the major parties)
There is a difference between marketing and advertising thats not being recognised.
Marketing is the process of promoting an idea or group, not advertising.
Advertising is one of the channels used in marketing, it's the most expensive and reaches the most people, it's the ideal channel for propaganda.
If you banned political marketing then yes you would effectively ban promoting political ideals all together.
However if you ban political advertising you can effectively limit propaganda with little to no negative side effects to grass roots political movements. This is because grass roots politics use other marketing channels and don't have the budget to be able to compete with the propaganda budget of a foreign government.
Even if grass roots did have the money to advertise other channels like social and word of mouth are more effective for them, banning political advertising would still work in their favour.
Foreign governments funding grassroots and "grassroots" is an old trick to the Cold War as well from both sides.
How can society change for the better if you can't communicate and try to convince people of your ideas in the public space? If you see a problem and think you have a (political) solution, you should be able to advertize your solution.
There is a de-facto ban on political advertizing (or "worldview" advertizing) in Germany, and it is really frustrating. The army can run ads looking for recruits, but you cannot run an ad for a peace campaign. There are ads for cigarettes, soft drinks, and alcohol, but most places won't let you run an ad to advocate, lets say, better healthcare.
Basically, this just helps cement the political status quo.