Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 553 posts

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#151

Post by pjlegato »

hippich wrote: post #146
pjlegato wrote: post #132

Many here seem upset at the idea that Bloomberg is spending a lot of his own money to run for president. Running for president is very expensive. All other candidates are also spending a lot of money -- but they're spending a lot of _other people's money_, to whom they are now beholden. What do those other people expect to get in return for their financial support? Surely they don't just give away millions of hard ea…

For what it is worth, I got text asking for donation to Bloomberg's campaign. So I would not expect Bloomberg not taking money from large donors.

Bloomberg doesn't need money. He solicits donations because the act of donating money causes the donator to feel personally invested in the campaign. They will be more likely to take steps to influence their friends and family to vote for Bloomberg, and more likely to actually bother to vote themselves, than someone who hasn't.

This is the same reason governments sell war bonds -- they don't actually need the $100. It rather serves to make ordinary people feel they are contributing something to the cause.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#153

Post by the_gastropod »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #95
danans wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hell, he wants to pay me $2500? I will pocket that and then vote for hopefully less obnoxious candidate. What about the votes of the people you influenced in his direction? If just 2 other people turn to him as a result, your vote against him has been effectively negated. Perhaps the $2500 means more to you than the vote against Bloomberg? If so, that's fair. A lot of people could use that kind of money, and I don'…

I believe people are not idiots and are capable of judging their own interest. I do not subscribe to the 'they are basically children, we have to protect them'. To the candidate I believe in I give my donation. For someone I believe, I will spread their message for free. Him? He has to pay.

> I believe people are not idiots and are capable of judging their own interest...

I feel like this is often the crux of the argument against any kind of government regulation. "The people are smart enough to not be duped!" And in many cases it's easier to create chaos / scam people than it is to defend yourself against it. Just because some people seem capable of defending themselves / cutting through the fraud doesn't mean everyone who can't are idiots or children.

I'll give you an example. There used to be a ton of "Anti-Virus" apps on the iOS App Store. Due to how iOS is built, these apps literally weren't even able to do anything—they were all pure scams. But... people purchased them, not knowing about it. Many of us on HN would recognize immediately that these were scams, because technology like this is in our wheelhouse, so to speak. But it's likely someone in your family (a non-idiot) who's used antivirus software on computers before, and was comfortable with that arrangement, would easily be duped into buying one of these apps. Your analogy would have you advertise or endorse these products, then turn around and mock any "idiot" who purchased them. That's, to me, classic unethical behavior. I can't fathom how this is defensible to anyone with a modicum of empathy.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#154

Post by xiler »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #104
pmoriarty wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"His attempt to simply buy an election is.. annoying, if not unseemly." How about subvertive of the democratic process?

It is only subvertive if people let it be so. But if his spending is subvertive then ALL like spending is subvertive. He is just more upfront about it. I do think you have a valid argument here assuming the process was not already subverted.

I think this practice is a bit worse than other forms of electioneering since it is not clear if views being expressed come directly from the candidate or not (unlike a TV ad or a rally). When governments do something similar this, their methods are rightly criticized as being undemocratic [1,2]. I think a similar line of reasoning applies to US election politics.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_web_brigades

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#155

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

deeblering4 wrote: post #134
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #57

It may be an unpopular opinion, but I am ok with Bloomberg spending some of his money. Granted, 300MM to him like approximately $20 to me, but still.. Do not misunderstand me. His attempt to simply buy an election is.. annoying, if not unseemly. That said, I am perfectly fine with him finally spending at least some of his vast fortune instead of hoarding it like a dragon. Hell, he wants to pay me $2500? I will pocket…

Unseemly is not a strong enough word. An effort to knowingly pay off human shills to covertly interfere with an election outcome is shameful, completely unethical and arguably illegal. Being passive about issues like this (let alone turning a blind eye and personally profiting from them...) gets into a scenario where there is no less obnoxious candidate to vote for.

I disagree on all counts. It may not be strong enough, but it is literally his money. He can burn it all in flames and you would have zero to say about it ( unless maybe ypu were his neigbor and smoke was too bad ).

And how is that covert? We are all talking about it. People seem to freak out, because it appears to be working, which is interesting.

Lastly, how am I passive? I said I would take his money if offerred. I placed myself right on the fence..

As for lack of candidates, I do not think we are at culling stage yet.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#156

Post by dang »

grumple wrote: post #75

So he's hiring a bunch of barely-over minimum wage workers to spread his message... and? What do you think the other politicians are doing with the millions they raise? This isn't a story.

The story is that the method is unorthodox. At least the article uses that word.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#157

Post by jaywalk »

X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: post #144
chrisco255 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's going to work. Money may be a guaranteed way to get yourself in "the top tier" in polling but when it comes to voting, I don't think that pans out. Money is a factor but it's not the only factor. Ross Perot spent I don't know how many millions and never got more than 10% of the vote. Clinton outspent Trump in 2016. If people don't get excited for a candidate and connect with them its just not going…

Clinton got more votes than trump as well, not the best example

She outspent Trump by something like 2:1 and got 3 million more votes that literally didn't matter. Still a good example.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#158

Post by dbqpdb »

pjlegato wrote: post #132

Many here seem upset at the idea that Bloomberg is spending a lot of his own money to run for president. Running for president is very expensive. All other candidates are also spending a lot of money -- but they're spending a lot of _other people's money_, to whom they are now beholden. What do those other people expect to get in return for their financial support? Surely they don't just give away millions of hard ea…

I dispute this logic entirely. Yes, he is not beholden to external special interests. But he is worth some 60 billion dollars, owns his own media company, is the single largest donator to the democaratic party(he owns Pelosi's super pac), and is deeply enmeshed in wall street. The guy literally is a special interest himself. You should all be terrified of a potential Bloomberg presidency. Everything coming out about him recently paints a picture of somebody with a lot of the exact same negative personality traits as Trump, but who is deeply competent. This is horrifying.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#159

Post by jaywalk »

sjg007 wrote: post #129

A populist President can be mitigated by Congress if they choose to act and also take back some of the executive powers they gave the President.

Congress doesn't give the President anything except money. Executive powers come from the Constitution, not Congress.

To put it simply: the President does not serve at the pleasure of Congress.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#160

Post by refurb »

jascii wrote: post #109
eej71 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a popular narrative, but I suspect the reality is - many of these named groups also voted for Trump. Consider this front line report in Ohio. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/21/outside-coas... "“OK. You want to talk about Trump? I voted for Trump!” I asked him if he was pulling my leg. He laughed. “No way. I may be a Muslim, but I am a businessman first and I am not stupid. Many Muslims here did.…

Anecdotal evidence is no evidence. The vote-count statistics in high-minority districts do not back up your suspicion.

Trump got 29% of Hispanic vote, 29% of Asian vote and 37% of the “other” vote.

Clearly there are a lot of minorities who voted for him.

Post reply on HN