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

391–400 of 553 posts

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#391

Post by elihu »

solinent wrote: post #351

Paid shills tend to have a strange effect where they polarize people in the other direction than intended since their arguments are not always well founded and honest, and they will always suffer from some form of groupthink. It's a slingshot effect--at first people fall for the farce, but soon they realize they have been mislead. It could even spoil the election and get some to vote in the opposite direction. I thin…

> Paid shills tend to have a strange effect where they polarize people in the other direction than intended since their arguments are not always well founded and honest, and they will always suffer from some form of groupthink.

Another aspect of this is that when one encounters a positive comment about Bloomberg on the Internet, the default assumption for a lot of people is going to be that Bloomberg slipped them a twenty. Even honest supporters of Bloomberg are going to have their statements viewed with extreme skepticism.

> I think it's also pretty easy to spot these days...

Is that really true? Some forms of astroturf are transparently obvious, but just because some of it is easy to spot doesn't mean it all is.

> I don't think this will end well for Bloomberg...

Same here. I'll take him seriously as a candidate once he's defended his ideas and his record in an adversarial setting (such as tonight's debate) and has won some delegates.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#392

Post by arrosenberg »

ColanR wrote: post #380
arrosenberg wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, the flip side is that such a government can't accomplish anything positive either.

Comparable to a library of unix programs - would you rather have small tools (/ organiziations) that are limited to a single job - which they are often optimized for - or a single behemoth which tries to do everything, and may not do it very well? ...and now the systemD vitriol makes sense.

The federal government is far more comparable to the first situation than the second. And most of the departments are extremely effective when they have leadership that believes in the mission of the agency.

Michael Lewis' the Fifth Risk highlights this pretty well.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#393

Post by takeda »

Loughla wrote: post #261
takeda wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it's really sad, Bloomberg essentially is Democratic version of Trump.

Not really. He's the centrist/right leaning version of Trump.

I was referring to his current party. He was in Republican party when he was a mayor and only changed his party affiliation in 2018 (most likely after noticing 2018 election results)

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#394

Post by oarabbus_ »

dorkinspace wrote: post #338
oarabbus_ wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What qualifies as a story for you? This is unprecedented in the history of US politics.

Is it unprecedented? HRC did the exact same thing.

On this scale it's absolutely unprecedented. Certainly worthy of a news story.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#395

Post by zigzaggy »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #230
zigzaggy wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my problem exactly. All this money, all these issues, and we're stuck with these clowns? Whatever happened to statesmen and women? Nope, we're stuck with politicians that act like pro wrestlers. We don't need to overthrow the government. We just need to overthrow the parties. I had such high hopes for humanity with the emergence of the internet. With the all the world's knowledge at our fingertips, including…

With all the world's knowledge at our fingertips, including detailed information about political fundraising and voting records, people have increasingly realized that politics isn't the right place for thoughtful discussions about real issues. It's like going to Nike headquarters and asking why everyone's so focused on sportswear.

I strongly disagree with your Nike / sportswear comparison. Maybe I didn't communicate my point clearly here. I'm specifically talking about governance / political science vs. popcorn politics. There are plenty of real issues to be discussed in the world of political philosophy, public administration and government that don't involve stage shows and rabble rousing.

Starting with local politics first, then regional, THEN national - the question of who will govern us and set rules and make laws is of critical importance. What good does it do to solve the world's problems if our representatives are robbing the coffers and crashing the plane into the mountain?

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#396

Post by omegaworks »

arrosenberg wrote: post #370
omegaworks wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Won in New Hampshire Tied in Iowa, won popular vote Polling strong in Nevada. The momentum is there. EDIT: Regarding policy, with so many Supreme Court Justices up in age, the next President will likely get the chance to set the tone. Citizens United is the ruling that enabled much of the financial influence in the government, and Bernie is committed to dismantling it.

> Regarding policy, with so many Supreme Court Justices up in age, the next President will likely get the chance to set the tone. Terrible strategy. Bernie replacing Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer isn't going to advance the agenda. Clarence Thomas is only 71 and won't step down if a Democrat is president. The only way Bernie passes his agenda is by getting significant portions of the country to strike until C…

With the support of so many unions[1] and willingness to use that support to push his agenda [unlike his predecessor 2], that might actually be a card in his pocket.

1. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/24/bernie-sanders-labo...

2. https://newrepublic.com/article/140245/obamas-lost-army-insi...

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#397

Post by ep103 »

zelias wrote: post #301

I'd respect the hell out of Bloomberg if he came out and said "damn right I'm buying this election...because the rules are that messed up" followed by a comprehensive plan to forever get money out of our elections.

There is a candidate saying the rules are messed up, but its not Bloomberg, its Sanders.

Bloomberg is the guy the rules were written to benefit. He doesn't want them changed.

That's why he chose to run against Sanders, when it appeared Sanders could win.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#398

Post by [deleted] »

huebomont wrote: post #361
nostromo wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bernie -- an Independent running as a Democrat. Trump - a former Democrat, now the Republican president Bloomberg - a former Republican, turned Independent, now running as a Democrat Parties used to have the power, but now it seems like popular politicians are picking the party they think provides them with the easiest path to power, realigning their policy views accordingly.

Bernie's "independent" label means very little. Look at how he votes. He's a Democrat. It's a weird attempted knock against him considering how consistent he's always been.

[deleted]

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#399

Post by ep103 »

three_seagrass wrote: post #389
akhilcacharya wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...it's not for sale? Never really understood this line of attack.

It's certainly not doing well though. Disney specifically ditched it as part of the Fox takeover.

Why is that a bad thing? It means the murdochs are now rich in cash from the acquisition, and free to concentrate on their news division, which was always his primary concern.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#400

Post by [deleted] »

mrguyorama wrote: post #252
zigzaggy wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my problem exactly. All this money, all these issues, and we're stuck with these clowns? Whatever happened to statesmen and women? Nope, we're stuck with politicians that act like pro wrestlers. We don't need to overthrow the government. We just need to overthrow the parties. I had such high hopes for humanity with the emergence of the internet. With the all the world's knowledge at our fingertips, including…

You go vote for someone else in the democratic primaries? He isn't the candidate

[deleted]
Post reply on HN