It seems to be a common viewpoint that it's "obviously" naive to think that the same political institutions could work for everyone around the world.

But lots of day-to-day-life things (city structures, school systems, increasingly even food...) seem to globalize quickly just fine.

Why the difference?

Seems like a good time to bring back our friend, Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

The day-to-day life "things" fulfil physiological and sometimes safety needs. Most political institutions support them.

The difference is that political institutions also reach above the foundations of the hierarchy.

engineering at /privy. building pixelpool.xyz, the first Farcaster video client. nyc. 👨‍💻🍎🏳️‍🌈  nf.td/payton

Media is more accessible than systematic changes. (movie is top) Maybe permanence is a factor here. We still see a large divide in movie popularity based loosely on regional political institutions and cultural norms. Granted, this divide's threshold is lower than those of systematic changes.

Do you truly think movies globalize easy?

There are some cultural phenomenons that spread fast.

Then there is the majority of media consumed that is heavily based on localized culture and political ideologies.

Movies seem to globalize easily

Are movies top, middle or lower in Maslow's hierarchy?