Cooperatives are not "socialism," they exist in a broader economy. China has a Socialist Market Economy, it has cooperatives and whatnot but that doesn't define their system, it's the public sector.

All countries have public and private sectors. Belgium's public sector is subservient to its private sector, though, the private sector is made up of large firms and is the driving aspect of the economy. It is the opposite in China, hence my point.

There is nothing inherently better about having a private option. Cuba has a private sector as well, though it is subservient to the public. That isn't why they have lower wages, though, it's because of brutal embargoes.

Everyone censors, in different ways, that which goes against their interests.

[–] Wanpieserino@lemm.ee 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

With the market cap of their SOE's, they have a broader impact on their economy. Sure, china is the most socialist relevant country in the world as of now.

Censorship can be ranked like anything else can.

https://rsf.org/en/index like they are trying to do.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

It isn't about market cap. The rubber factory has more power than the rubber ball factory, as an example, market cap is one window.

As for RSF, it's a government-funded western propaganda outlet designed to manufacture consent against countries that don't toe the Western line.

RSF's budget for 2022 totalled €8m. 52% of the organisation's income comes from the state sector; 22% from foundations; 12% from commercial activities; 11% from sponsorships and public donations.[57] Foundations supporting RSF's work through services include the American Express, the Société Générale, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, and Ford Foundation. [58]

In 2005 RSF was reported by The Guardian to have been criticised by left-wing writer Diana Barahona for accepting funding from the National Endowment for Democracy in the US and the Center for a Free Cuba. She accused RSF of being part of “a neocon crusade” against Fidel Castro's Government of Cuba. In response, Secretary-general Robert Ménard stated that funding from NED totalled 0.92 per cent of RSF's budget and was used to support African journalists and their families.[59] RSF ceased its relationship with the Center for a Free Cuba in 2008.[60]

The NED in particular is pretty damning.

[–] Wanpieserino@lemm.ee 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

RSF was just an example to show that such a ranking exists. Removing conflict of interest and the ability to censor will be what's needed in order to have real unguided public opinion.

That's difficult to achieve.

The major thing to think about are things like CP, obviously that needs to be removed from existence.

So there's positives to control, but nobody does anything for free.

Like here at Lemmy, I assume an instance creator of a popular instance will be able to be bought by companies or politicians.

Like Musk just bought twitter, lots of newspaper companies are owned by oligarchs. Other sources of news are owned by governments.

There's always a conflict of interest.

It's difficult to get away from.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago

A ranking only exists for propaganda purposes, though, that's why it's Western Government-Funded.

As for Lemmy and an instance creator being "bought," it could happen, sure, but it hasn't, and moreover such an instance can be defederated from.