11–20 of 74 posts
I can't help but assume Zuckerberg's motive for supporting this has nothing to do with helping society, and everything to do with helping himself and his future campaign (and distracting people from Facebook's role in Trump's election).
to me, the fact that david plouffe is working with zuckerberg removes an doubt (if there was any to begin with) that mark is going to run for president. he will be close to macron's age in 2020, though still younger. shares are trading at 25 cents on the dollar in a market predicting his presidential run: https://www.predictit.org/Contract/5534/Will-Facebook's-Mark... just sitting here thinking about him, im kinda to…
At this point we need some kind of corporate blacklist of people like zuckerberg, page, and musk. And bar them from ever running for political office.
I posted about some of my passengers' justice-induced traumas: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13286085 Punishment is always counter-productive to correct the behavior of people who are "drowning": addicts, members of the under-class, children who've yet to fully mature (brain is still developing until 25 years), etc.
Careful, "developing" is very much a weasel word in these contexts. Brains are "developing" until death. That's very much their purpose: to change as a function of input.
Also, "punishment" is a bit of a weasel word in this context. It's quite clear that some form of punishment is instrumental in the proper development of the brain, especially with regards to social norm. This holds even with people in the depths of despair.
The issue is about whether we're actually punishing in a constructive way, and whether we're simultaneously extending a helping hand.
I can't help but assume Zuckerberg's motive for supporting this has nothing to do with helping society, and everything to do with helping himself and his future campaign (and distracting people from Facebook's role in Trump's election).
Who cares what his motive is?
I don't think we should be giving people credit for PR "philanthropy".
While I tend to start at the CATO blog I usually end up one of the sites they point too. Libertarian sites like CATO have always been interested in the abuse and injustice of the system. I know there are some knee jerk not fans of CATO but you really are missing out. to summarize our times the simple comic on this page illustrates how the system can threaten everyone https://www.cato.org/blog/when-our-rights-become-c…
Most libertarian sites and writers, though, just offer anti-government claptrap on top of some shallow tropes of rugged individualism. If you want to find out how serious a libertarian is, make them tell you how they'd deal with the problem of crime, using real-world examples of vulnerable people and populations.
I'm in favor of governance that maximises liberty, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence. People who say they want to abolish government are either living in a fantasy world or aim to set up an autocratic government of their own, sometimes both.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At this point we need some kind of corporate blacklist of people like zuckerberg, page, and musk. And bar them from ever running for political office.
That's ridiculous. He'd be more accountable in office than he is as CEO of the world's largest country. I mean, be skeptical of it by all means but banning people from running is just foolish.
He can push any agenda he wants and have it delivered in just the right way to get the public to agree. You want a dude with that power to also be given executive control of the country?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who cares what his motive is?
I do, in case you missed that. I don't think we should be giving people credit for PR "philanthropy".
This site [1] seems like a great complement to usafacts.org. It's great that these philanthropists are working on solutions to help us understand the empirical results of our policies and politicians. [1] https://measuresforjustice.org/portal/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do, in case you missed that. I don't think we should be giving people credit for PR "philanthropy".
Very few people are saints but if the data is useful or interesting then I don't really care. I think probably most philanthropists have some motives besides altruism.
This site [1] seems like a great complement to usafacts.org. It's great that these philanthropists are working on solutions to help us understand the empirical results of our policies and politicians. [1] https://measuresforjustice.org/portal/