Skip to content

neoliberalism

The cart or the donkey? Social media ownership and the battle for attention

Dear friends,

As usual, I've spent a bit of time thinking about our current, largely accelerationist, political milieu and its relationship with the (news/social) media. Of most interest to me, at least at this particular moment, is how quickly the cycle changes, and how obvious the political bias of the media truly is. This is exacerbated, particularly here in Australia, by the fundamental lack of diversity of media ownership. It's a Murdoch town here, and he's got goons and crowbars ready for any serious start-up contender. Perhaps I should quickly clarify, in case any of the litigious media cronies are loitering, they have "earned" those billions of dollars of surplus funding, and their dominance begets them a naturally (out)sized influence in the chambers of parliament. Digressing, we are in a bit of a tangle. Social and traditional media ownership concentration is rife, the news cycle is attention grabbing shorter and shorter attention spans, and fascism is rising.

We've talked about social media, and the ways algorithms focus people's attention, and we've thought on media hegemony and the concentration of media ownership as a soapbox. But there's a schematic, here, emerging for us to consider worth further analysis. Media, in the varied forms which exist, have an extreme influence on civil society ideology and practice, and this requires examination. In particular we should ever examine our media in light of current events, as wars, ideological battles, and genocide become normalised, it is ever more important. Gramsci offers us a framework for understanding power and the relationship between capitalist/worker coloniser/colonised, and more, and emphasises the power of the media:

"The press is the most dynamic part of the ideological structure, but not the only one. Everything that directly or indirectly influences or could influence public opinion belongs to it: libraries, schools, associations and clubs of various kinds, even architecture, the layout of streets and their names"
- Gramsci, 1971

There is a significance in the way media, or in Gramsci's time the press, has influence over public opinion. For Gramsci the thinkers and workers in those institutions, those responsible for writing the news for instance, are 'traditional intellectuals'. These educated folks work in knowledge production but are utterly subservient to the capitalists and narratives which benefit them. Yet Gramsci compels us to determine ways to redirect their efforts from pro-capitalist production towards emancipatory ends. But let's not get overly sidetracked – we'll come back to Gramsci at the end. For now, let's examine some 'common sense' perspectives and offer some good sense retorts to help us solidify our thinking in relation to theories of knowledge. For our consideration today:

  • News cycles are operated in short terms;
  • Some (counter-hegemonic) stories are are deliberately phased out of those cycles;
  • Social media vies for and directs attention of multitudes towards popular narratives;
  • Most hegemonic narratives drive individualist pro-capitalist thought; and
  • All media sits atop a consumerist, colonial and pro-capital base and is imbued by this way of thinking.

In an effort to be somewhat systematic, let's start with news cycles. In the United States, television news is notoriously set in 24 hour cycles, or perhaps 12 hour cycles, with attention spans increasingly shortening. Simultaneously attention as a metric becomes foundationally desirable[1]. There are events which may increase or decrease the total number of news stories covered, but largely there is a constant feed of new material for news media to ensure novelty. This novelty – the demand for new news – is political. The stories shared are tinted with a way of knowing which drives a consumerist, colonial and pro-capitalist agenda. For instance, for MSNBC, a constant soft critique of Republican "decision-making" without proper reflection on Democrats failings, for Fox News a constant libellous critique of anyone ... anyone but Trump. But at both ends of a political scale these news corporations follow a common pattern: amplify a particular issue (related to a spin of hegemonic ideology), monetise attention (the level of this attention is now gaged by social media interactions), persist political narratives, move on to the next story. Throughout the cycle of introduction, monetisation, politicisation, and constant movement there are subtler themes. These largely relate to the monetisation of a particular channel – i.e., Fox News wants to retain angry viewers, and to direct their fervour into consumerism for Murdoch-friendly enterprises (read: sell shit).

Relatedly, during this clamouring for new news, stories which shed negative light on the cable news company's view of capitalism are silenced and phased out. Equally, and muddying these waters, stories which do not appear to capture the audience's attention are also phased out. Let's move to an example. Take for instance the rapid turn away from coverage of the largest protest movement in American history. This was covered quietly for about three days. For an event of such scale, this coverage is extremely short in terms of news cycles. If we were asked to decide between the two reasons for this story to be phased out, which would you select as a more likely reason? Limited newsworthiness or limited commercialisation opportunities. The politicisation of attention continually demands new stories, but never those which might challenge the dominant ideology – colonial capitalism. And with the large-scale monetisation of attention and emotion for consumerism under capitalism, disruption that verges anywhere near a critique of the hegemony is preordained as danger. Even in important could-be news stories we can see the political protection of colonial capitalism, take for instance Trump featuring heavily in the Epstein files. This challenges Trump, but also draws attention to the systemic failure to bring justice to young people exploited directly by capitalists. A story like this, a threat to capitalist hegemony, if even covered would be made to seem irrelevant and boring. The media use a handful of techniques here to balance "doing the job" and not challenging the status quo: overdoing charts, numbers and statistics, speaking in a disengaged tone, burying the article, not sending a push notification, or keeping just the anchor on screen for a segment read. Here, we'll see the news delivered while allowing the media to direct attention the way the hegemonic political agenda demands.

As traditional media languishes, relatively unable to capture attention during the TikTokification of news, new exaggerated attention-seeking practices emerge. Social media is repositioned as the most important space for that attention, while simultaneously fracturing it and directing it elsewhere. Even the news cycle itself has accelerated to "real-time" blogs and image+text formats to vie for a share of acknowledgement in a crowded market of diminished attention[2]. We also see increased sensationalisation and accelerationism which does more than grab at attention, it fundamentally shapes the pitch and tone of stories and may warp the truth of events just to stand out amidst users ad-ridden social media feeds of hundreds of news sources, comedy artefacts, and maybe the occasional family photo. Social media algorithms (often manipulated by billionaire fiefdom kings) then amplify the most successfully sensationalised story, which in turn feeds new garbage and extreme perspectives back into the 24 hour news cycle. Similarly to Elon re-training Grock on the right-wing misinformation echo chamber that is Twitter, the ouroboros of extremist shit masticates yesterdays garbage back into today's headlines. As though this weren't indictment enough, media moguls and pro-imperial think-tanks continue to cycle "in" meaningless pro-genocide, pro-war, and pro-military industrial complex propaganda as though it were news. This blend becomes digital noise, impossible to permeate. Moreover, discerning fact from fiction, ideology from representation of reality, becomes a mammoth task, particularly for those whose digital literacy was (is!) never developed. Do I sound like Žižek? Ideology[3]!

If we consider social media to be the 'new' media kid on the block, it's worth examining its thematic ideological structures too. Following our assertion above that (cable) news media seeks to craft pro-capital consumerism around increasingly irrelevant news stories, then social media's primary drive is most likely for attention. This attention (seeking), naturally, is political too. And the political choices made by platforms are highly ideological, and gatekeep audiences[4], to craft a deliberate global narrative. Between these two medias ('traditional' and 'social') there is often collusion, traditional news driving engagement in sensationalised discussions on social media, exposing users to more interaction-based advertisement. Thereby driving up "engagement" statistics for social media companies, who then sell ad spaces back to the traditional news providers. Hang on... where are the benefits for the traditional media organisations?[5]

Traditional media cannibalises itself to drive engagement on platforms which, by their nature, put traditional media out of work (extreme example of this in Australia where our news media was largely blocked on Meta while News Corp attempted to force them to pay for linking to their articles). Here we are seeing a thinning of traditional media as they suffer with advertisers moving to the new media platforms. And, with social media giants increasingly consuming their competition (Facebook buying Instagram, anyone?) we are seeing a gentrification of all media – robbing a plurality internet forums to feed a singular behemoth (Meta). This meta (get it, ha) amalgam of social medias, strip mining the internet and traditional media and asserting itself as king has created one giant entity. In a cruel twist of fate this singular overlord of a platform heavily promotes an ideology of individualism. And its not just individualism for you[6]. This individualism coalesces around the attention drive, but it would be foolish to suggest direct causation. There has, however, been a rapid intensification of content which spurs self interest – perhaps psychologically there's a connection? Narcissus shines again.

Contrary to assumptions about social media democratising information access, the handful of dominant platforms have been shown to operate through curation systems that actively shape what content receives collective attention[7]. An attention economy has emerged, one tightly controlled by Meta (the conglomerate owner of Facebook, Instagram, Threads and others), and their vested interest is driving consumer engagement in advertising (particularly targeted advertising) and in an oddly non-paradoxical way, content gains attention based on already-received attention[8]. When studied, however, even aggregation platforms, which arguably help shape which stories gather attention, such as Reddit, made use of human ranking algorithms that direct which posts climb feeds (subtle, here, read the footnote)[9]. In essence, platform owners determine which voices gain visibility and which remain marginalised by their initial promotion (or lack thereof) in feeds. While engagement-forward and clickbait content has some affect, the initial filtration and ranking system which is deliberately opaque on corporate social media platforms has a remarkable influence on popular attention – and rarely is it not advertiser-friendly[10].

You may also have noticed, here, that there is an underlying thread of 1:1 relationships. The user has a relationship with the platform. The viewer has a relationship with the platform (subscription service). The advertiser with the platform. The traditional media? The platform. But it's not just the platform redefining relationships with media such as the infamous Web 2.0 (RWW), its a fundamental rewrite of human social interaction. In research in the above[10:1] a term emerged: "individuals-in-the-group". Rather than being "social" media, these platforms are attention-seeking individualising platforms above all as they seek monetisation and profitability. Not a "social" platform, but an advertising platform. We could, therefore, extend our argument, social media sites function as spaces to internalise competitive values rooted in "performance metrics", "(anti)social consumer behaviour", and perpetual "self-optimisation". One literally needs look no further than the ads. But it's not just our argument. Research has shown this is not only the case, but deliberately the mission of the platform[11]. The platform acts as a hegemonic organ shaping neoliberal identities, encouraging people to adopt individualistic mindsets[12] and seek personal remedies[13] for what are usually fundamentally macro social challenges. Through constant engagement with these sites, users gradually embrace a worldview which prioritises individual achievement and self-improvement over collective action and systemic solutions.

Concerningly, social media also contributes to "depoliticisation" by transforming political issues into individual lifestyle choices rather than collective action problems. Climate change becomes just a personal consumer choice problem, economic hardship due to wealth inequality becomes personal loan fodder, identity becomes politics. Even as far back as 2011 research into social media's effect on collective vs personal ideology and values in online political spaces was being investigated[14]. Though the media broadly has been interrogated for its role in promoting individualism and other neoliberal colonial capitalist attitudes for decades. The movement from collective to individual organisation of society feeds that very consumerism, colonialism, capitalism, and elitism. From media ownership concentration to all eyes on advertising revenues, systems continue to confine acceptable discourse to consumerist capitalism. Human suffering, in this space, is theatre – grist for the mill, and sensationalisation, 'civil' debate, and influencers simply keep the advertising machine rolling. However, there are models which ease our understanding of this system, and even offer opportunities to challenge the hegmeonic thinking.

Famously Herman and Chomsky developed the 'Propaganda Model', which argues that mass media in democratic societies primarily serves already powerful interests. It achieves this through five filters: (1) concentrated corporate ownership of media (massive capital investment), (2) dependence on advertising revenue that favours content appealing to affluent audiences, (3) reliance on official sources from government and business for news, (4) organised criticism that disciplines media deviating from elite interests, and (5) historically, anti-communism as an ideology that limits acceptable debate. These filters work together to create a propaganda system where news appears objective but systematically favours establishment views and marginalises dissent[15]. This model is particularly relevant to the construction of the US media, but is also growingly relevant as the US owned social media platform (Meta) subsumes any local/global alternatives. As it was with the media when this model was divined, social media also operates to secure and promote the agenda of an unelected wealthy elite, a wealthy elite profiting from human suffering and the destruction of our planet. As we consume ourselves to death, and intellectually backflip to make this our problem, we're eased by the comfort of advertising which suggests its all within our individual narcissistic power to change the world. Just lie back and stare at Instagram, and ignore those increasingly despotic capitalists over there, they're harmless.

So, where are we? We've seen that the acceleration of news cycles creates temporal conditions favouring simple reactionary narratives over complex systemic analysis [16]. This temporal pressure combines with systematic exclusion of counter-hegemonic perspectives to create an information environment dominated by establishment viewpoints. Social media amplifies this by directing collective attention toward content optimised for engagement rather than democratic value, while simultaneously promoting individualistic responses that depoliticise collective problems. The entire system rests on consumerist foundations which require media to serve capital's interests rather than democratic functions [17]. Digital platforms function as mechanisms of ideological reproduction that atomise collective solidarity while concentrating power in technological and financial elites[18]. Amazing. What a time to be alive. Let's return to Gramsci for some clarification about what we might do about all this.

Gramsci's "hegemony" shows us that this media apparatus functions as both propaganda and fundamental architecture of common sense. The accelerated news cycle, algorithmic curation, and individualistic framing we've examined constitute what Gramsci critiqued in examining the colonial capitalist hegemonic project. This project is one that secures ruling class dominance through coercion and rewriting human relations through capitalist logic emphasising that these are natural, inevitable, and personally beneficial (surprise: they aren't). The traditional intellectuals working within these media institutions, from journalists to platform engineers, are (often unquestioning) architects of consent to this reality, their technical expertise enlisted in service of maintaining the existing order. But Gramsci also offered us illustration of the contradictions within this system. Technologies which atomise us also offer possibilities for organic intellectual development and counter-hegemonic organisation[19]. The challenge, then, is to develop alternative forms of cultural and intellectual leadership that contest the dominant narratives at their root – not at the symptom. We need new "institutions", new forms of governance and collective knowledge production which nest in understanding our shared reality; a war of position which recognises media as a crucial battleground in the struggle for egalitarian social transformation. Or something, I don't know, it's Wednesday. Go out and touch grass.

In solidarity,

Aidan

  1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09311-w https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103243 ↩︎
  2. https://dhq-static.digitalhumanities.org/pdf/000582.pdf https://doi.org/10.1145/1557019.1557077 ↩︎
  3. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137361516_3 ↩︎
  4. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781544391199.n177 ↩︎
  5. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.20851/j.ctt1t304qd.13 ↩︎
  6. Its everything from "coaches" to influencers, it's all about you. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/jun/24/what-i-learned-following-400-online-instagram-gurus ↩︎
  7. https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2024.59619 ↩︎
  8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19283 https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwae035 ↩︎
  9. This study "highlight that the order in which content is ranked can influence the levels and types of user engagement within algorithmically curated feeds" - https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.20491 ↩︎
  10. i.e., https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115622481 ↩︎ ↩︎
  11. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia4020041 ↩︎
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7673976/ ↩︎
  13. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia4020041 ↩︎
  14. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2011.579141 (yes, 2010 was 15 years ago – the horror) ↩︎
  15. https://chomsky.info/consent01/ ↩︎
  16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103243 ↩︎
  17. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare8040497 ↩︎
  18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038520918562 ↩︎
  19. c.f., lemmy; mastodon; etc. ↩︎
,   &  Aidan Cornelius-Bell
meta, organic intellectuals, digital literacy, neoliberalism, curation, hegemony, social media

The postal service

Dear friends,

In an almost bourgeois fugue state today I felt rising rage at the para-privatisation of the postal service in this country. Yeah, oddly specific trigger for today’s writing, ey. This, in particular, after being scorned dozens of times for deliveries by “express post” that almost feel like spite come 3-4 business days later than their estimate with an accompanying gaslighting green sign saying “Updated”. Ugh. Okay, but let’s think about the motivations of the company behind all this, because as we know, Australia Post is technically a government body, but with absolutely none of the benefits of nationalisation – just like almost all our other services which have been sold to the lowest bidder to extract maximum profit for shareholders and screw consumers everywhere.

Australia Post operates, fairly uniquely, as a corporate entity. However, unlike privatised utilities, such as water and electricity, which are run for a profit subject to “government regulators” (a genius invention that allows the government to take credit for any semblance of good work done by corpo operators, while ensuring that billionaires accumulate more skimmed wealth back from consumers forced into monopoly “markets”), it remains a corporate entity of the government. The government is the only shareholder. So the profits extracted by the postal service flow to highly paid leadership and government pockets, with no reciprocal investment from government back into the postal service. Simply put, the postal service in this country is a business owned by and beholden to the government, who wants it run like a business. The worst of both worlds. Anyway, enough whinging, let’s analyse it.

The corporatisation of public entities in Australia, which, obviously, is exemplified by Australia Post, represents another form of twisted neoliberal transformation – one that maintains a facade of “public ownership” while implementing private sector logic and extractive practices. This hybrid model, where government enterprises are restructured to operate as corporations while remaining technically state-owned, serves as a transitional phase in the broader project of privatisation. The transformation of Australia Post from a public service focused on universal mail delivery to a “government business enterprise” obsessed with profit metrics and market share epitomises this process. Under this model, essential public services are forced to operate according to market principles, leading to branch closures in “unprofitable” (read: poorer) areas, workforce casualisation, and the prioritisation of (late) parcel delivery (where competition enables price gouging) over basic mail services. This corporatisation sees the gradual absorption of public institutions into capitalist logic without the political resistance that outright privatisation might generate. Sneaky, and effective.

The Australia Post case is particularly interesting, to me right now as I wait for a package, as it demonstrates how corporatisation functions as a mechanism for transferring wealth from workers and communities to capital while maintaining the illusion of public ownership. CEO salaries skyrocket while front-line postal workers face increasing precarity and intensified exploitation. Regional communities lose services deemed “inefficient” while executive bonuses (remember that watch?) are justified through metrics that privilege profit over public good. The corporate structure enables the worst aspects of private sector management - obsession with metrics, worker surveillance, and continuous cost-cutting – while the government connection provides convenient cover for exploitative practices. Harvey called this process “accumulation by dispossession”, operating through institutional transformation rather than outright privatisation, the slow bleeding of public value into private hands through the imposition of corporate logic on public services.

The broader implications of this corporatisation trend reveal how neoliberal ideology has thoroughly infected Australian governance – as though we didn’t know this already. Even nominally public institutions are now expected to operate as if they were private businesses, with “commercial returns” taking precedence over social benefit (hmm, this feels awfully familiar in the context of universities). This creates a twisted form of exploitation where public assets, built through generations of collective investment and labour, are transformed into extractive enterprises that operate against the interests of the very communities they’re meant to serve. The ALP’s embrace of this model demonstrates their complete capitulation to neoliberal logic – maintaining technical public ownership while gutting the actual public service mission of these institutions. The result is a form of privatisation-by-stealth that could actually be more damaging than outright privatisation, as it corrupts the very notion of public service while providing political cover for continued exploitation.

So, obviously, I decided to have a look at the strategic priorities and KPIs of Australia Post which, naturally, show us how corporatisation transforms public services into engines of capitalist accumulation under the guise of “modernisation” and “efficiency” – literally, using these words. The focus on “winning in eCommerce” and “market leading digital experiences” reveals how thoroughly market logic has colonised what was once a public service mission [1]. From these priorities, Marx might have suggested, we see the subordination of use value (delivering mail to all Australians) to exchange value (maximising profitable [i.e., not to consumers, but B2B] parcel delivery services). The language used in their strategic framework – with its emphasis on “customer-centric” decisions rather than public service [2] – shows again how discourses of neoliberal capitalist ideology have thoroughly gripped once public institutions [3].

While the government “transparency portal” hosts the reports, the name must be ironic because, the absence of genuine public service metrics from their Enterprise Scorecard and the complete inaccessibility of internal success metrics show an opaque postal corporation, not a public good. From what we can see, there are KPIs focused entirely on commercial performance and market competition – a framework that would be indistinguishable from any private logistics company. With reports obscene executive compensation packages (again, luxury watches, anyone?), including multi-million dollar payouts even during periods of loss, reveal how corporatisation enables private sector wealth extraction while maintaining the facade of public ownership.

The Post26 Strategy [4], with its technocratic emphasis on “digital transformation” and “customer experience”, serves as ideological cover for the continued dismantling of universal service obligations. As mentioned, when they discuss “reimagining the Post Office network”, what they really mean is closing “unprofitable” branches in working class and regional communities while investing in premium services for wealthy urban areas. This strategic direction demonstrates passive revolution, toward neoliberalism, the gradual transformation of public institutions through the implementation of market logic and corporate governance structures. The result is a publicly-owned institution that actively works against public interests while generating private profits through executive compensation and contractor arrangements – precisely the outcome intended by neoliberal restructuring. And I, for one, find that incredibly sad.

The subterfuge of “almost privatisation” here is sick, particularly after decades of privatisation in the country. Under successive Labor and Liberal governments, Australia has witnessed the systematic dismantling of public services through privatisation: the continued expansion of capital into previously uncommodified spheres of social life. From telecommunications (Telstra) to energy infrastructure to healthcare, this transformation represents both a transfer of ownership and a fundamental shift in how these essential services are conceptualised – from public goods to sources of private profit extraction. Could it get any more gross? Yeah. The privatisation playbook follows a familiar pattern: first, public services are deliberately underfunded and undermined, creating artificial crises that justify private sector intervention. Then, public assets built through generations of collective labour are sold off at bargain prices to private interests. This process has been particularly aggressive in Australia, where neoliberal ideology’s grip on both major parties has resulted in bipartisan support for privatisation despite clear evidence of negative outcomes for workers and service users.

The ideological justification for this “privatisation”, in all its forms, relies on manufactured consent, the carefully cultivated belief that private sector “efficiency” naturally leads to better services and lower costs. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yet this mythology serves to mask the fundamental contradiction at the heart of privatised essential services, and the Australian public falls for it every single time. The incompatibility between the profit motive and the social necessity of these services is rendered invisible. When basic human needs like healthcare, energy, and transportation are subjected to market logic, the result is inevitably the prioritisation of shareholder returns over public good. The ALP’s role in this process is, as always, insidious using its historical connection to the labour movement to provide progressive cover for fundamentally regressive policies that transfer wealth and power from workers to capital. But let’s not get started on the Labor party right now.

The deliberate degradation of public services in Australia shows progressive neoliberalism (borrowing from Fraser), the coupling of regressive economic policies with a superficial veneer of social progress. This deterioration has hit marginalised communities with particular force, creating compounded exploitation at the intersections of class, race, disability and gender. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, for instance, face both the withdrawal of culturally appropriate services and the imposition of privatised alternatives that fail to meet community needs. The disabled community confronts an NDIS increasingly shaped by market logic rather than care requirements. These kinds of targeted impact reveals how the degradation of public services functions as a mechanism for reinforcing existing social hierarchies while creating new forms of dispossession. And damn its pernicious.

However, within this bleak landscape of corporatisation and privatisation, spaces for resistance and transformation continue to emerge. Honestly, all the time, opportunities for resistance and assertion of new ways of working abound. The contradictions that make Australia Post’s “hybrid” model so exploitative also create opportunities for worker and community organising. When postal workers face intensified exploitation, when communities lose vital services, when the gap between executive compensation and front-line working conditions becomes too grotesque to ignore, the potential for collective action grows. The union movement, despite decades of neoliberal attacks, retains significant strength in the postal sector – and the public’s growing frustration (okay, maybe just “my growing frustration”) with deteriorating services creates natural allies for workers’ struggles.

More broadly, the failure of privatisation and corporatisation to deliver on their promises of
“efficiency” and “improved services” has created cracks in the neoliberal consensus. So much so that their CEOs are being exterminated. Each time an “express” parcel arrives days late (lol, sorry I can’t help but whinge), each time a rural community loses its post office, each time workers face intensified surveillance and exploitation, the mythology of market superiority becomes harder to maintain. These contradictions provide openings for advancing alternative visions. Ones that reconnect public services with their original mission of serving human needs rather than generating profit. The future of truly public services depends on our ability to imagine and fight for alternatives to both outright privatisation and the cynical half-measure of corporatisation.

In solidarity,

Aidan

  1. https://auspost.com.au/content/dam/auspost_corp/media/documents/statement-of-corporate-intent-2023-24-to-2026-27.pdf ↩︎

  2. https://auspost.com.au/content/dam/auspost_corp/media/documents/2023-australia-post-annual-report.pdf ↩︎

  3. https://www.transparency.gov.au/publications/communications-and-the-arts/australian-postal-corporation/australian-postal-corporation-annual-report-2023-24/overview/our-strategic-priorities ↩︎

  4. https://stest.npe.ourpost.com.au/about-us/our-business-and-purpose/post26-strategy I mean, really, for how long can a company lean on “COVID impacts” as an excuse for poor domestic shipping strategies? ↩︎

,   &  Aidan Cornelius-Bell
post, privatisation, neoliberalism, capitalist realism, australia post, corporatisation