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

191–200 of 553 posts

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#191

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

the_gastropod wrote: post #153
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 does…

You do have a point, but I think your analogy does not hold.

US schools do have educational system focused on presenting how US election system is supposed to work under ideal circumstances. By default, citizen should know wtf they are voting for. It may be a system issue, but that is a separate conversation.

Apps, otoh, are relatively new. There is no class out there on avoiding scams ( though there probably should be ).

I also disagree with unethical part. He is spending his own money. How is that unethical?

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#192

Post by crazypyro »

eplanit wrote: post #161
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.

He'll be on the debate stage tonight as a legitimized candidate -- having not participated in the competitive process at all, and without a single donor (doesn't need 'em), and levering his billions to flood media. It's a rather disgusting story, actually.

Isn't him being on the debate stage evidence he is actively participating in the so called "competitive process"?

This seems like a rather weak point of contention...

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#193

Post by rpastuszak »

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.

True, but we need more people aware of that + less complacency. The fact that something became a norm doesn't mean that it's good.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#194

Post by sigmaprimus »

hnaccount141 wrote: post #149
sigmaprimus wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually I do agree with your statement, your statement is a much more nuanced PC way of getting to the point of my original comment. I tend to far more blunt with my comments probably because I just get a kick out working up the zealots on both sides.

> I tend to far more blunt with my comments probably because I just get a kick out working up the zealots on both sides. HN is not the place for that sort of thing.

I don't want to turn this into some kind of a flame war, but who are you to tell me or anyone else how to comment?

If you have a problem with my comment click the down arrow infront of it, oh wait nevermind you can't do that.

Im sorry my comment upset you or actually the better way of saying that would be, Im sorry your upset with my comment.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#195

Post by leftyted »

eplanit wrote: post #161
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.

He'll be on the debate stage tonight as a legitimized candidate -- having not participated in the competitive process at all, and without a single donor (doesn't need 'em), and levering his billions to flood media. It's a rather disgusting story, actually.

The "competitive process" is getting people to say they'll vote for you in polls. So he has been participating in that process. Bloomberg -- rightly or wrongly -- has a broad appeal.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#196

Post by hcknwscommenter »

rudedogg wrote: post #107
hcknwscommenter wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hillary outspending Trump 2:1 is a ridiculous way to look at it. When you combine the PAC/SuperPAC money spent for Trump with the Kremlin GRU efforts, it seems to me that Trump (including 3rd party efforts to help Trump and/or reduce Dem turnout) outspent Hillary roughly 100:1.

Can you back this up with... anything? I'm not denying the Russian interference, but the numbers include PACs: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidentia...

From your link you are presumably comparing $1,190.7M to $646.8M correct? Those values don't reflect the 66M of Trumps own money, don't reflect Russian interference (which has been going on since approximately the Magnitksy act), and don't reflect the in-kind gifts Trump gave by using his own private jet and numerous Trump properties for rallies. Maybe (and I truly mean maybe), the 100:1 remark was hyperbole on my part, but I personally don't doubt that the GRU spent billions.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#197

Post by AndrewUnmuted »

CydeWeys wrote: post #185
AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, I strongly disagree with Bloomberg, having lived through his reign of terror in NYC personally. But I just don't see the point in focusing on this kind of attack. The Democratic party is really not required to have any sort of fair process for deciding their candidate for president. It can be as transparently crooked and disgusting as this and really that's just how he chose to operate within the legal fram…

"The Democratic party is really not required to have any sort of fair process for deciding their candidate for president. It can be as transparently crooked and disgusting as this and really that's just how he chose to operate within the legal frameworks established by folks like him." So what though? What point is this rebutting? If a process is crooked and disgusting then damn straight you're gonna have people comp…

My point is rebutting the point made by the poster before me, who said there was a real story here.

I disagree. This is somewhat par for the course. For many people, this could be the first time they experience the disappointment of how corrupt folks like Bloomberg operate within the political sphere. However, these people would be incorrect to chalk this up as historically or even politically noteworthy, for many of us this is rather unsurprising and the story has already been told many times. Why rehash these tired tropes when Bloomberg presents so many new, unique, and significant issues that we now must address?

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#199

Post by akhilcacharya »

anonAndOn wrote: post #186

What a fascinating choice between two New York billionaires. A populist carnival barker vs. a man who built his own personal tech/media empire. I'd bet dollars to donuts Mike's got a tech team in place right now that is running rings around the DNC's haphazard patronage party.

They're building it, and seem to be recruiting heavily from Google/Facebook/Amazon etc.

From a political science and historical perspective it's absolutely astonishing. Mike has a lot of baggage but a lot of cash and talent behind him, including ~100 pretty excellent TV and online ads.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#200

Post by kennywinker »

jariel wrote: post #180
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.

True, but the 'story' is that he didn't 'raise' this money, it's his own. Meaning it has pretty big implications for campaign finance. The precedent for having consecutive 'billionaires' as president is a little troubling. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with billionaires, but it sets the bar oddly high for a democratic republic.

> Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with billionaires

Debatable. Find me a billionaire who didn't get where they are through exploitive labour practices, monopolistic consolidation, political manipulation, massive environmental damage, or inheriting wealth earned in one or more of those ways. A world where billionaires can exists seems like a perversion of the ideals of "healthy" capitalism to me.

Post reply on HN