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

431–440 of 553 posts

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#431

Post by danso »

mrguyorama wrote: post #285
danso wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Party registration is not an immutable property.

I was pointing out that it was not "supposed" at all. Trump is a former democrat in exactly the same way that Bloomberg is a former republican. There was no reason to weasel word it

Fair enough. I think the more important thing is that Bloomberg registered as a Republican and then ran (and won) as a Republican for elected office: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayoralty_of_Michael_Bloomberg

You can register whatever party you want as a regular citizen, but it doesn't dictate who you vote for or what you believe in or actually do.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#432

Post by i_am_nomad »

newshorts wrote: post #352

If Bloomberg get elected and successfully purchases the presidency, I’m moving my family out of the US. I will no long contribute to our collective GDP or pay taxes. I’ll vote with my feet if I can’t vote with my rights as an American citizen.

Don’t forget to pay your exit tax.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#433

Post by beepboopbeep »

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.

this is naive. The guy self funded. He's competing plenty, just not the classic way. No one is forcing anyone to support the guy. People are considering his points and saying "Ya, I support this guy". Best way to actually get that support down is to expose him to the public. You also risk him being a great debater, so it is what it is.

It sucks, but welcome to politics.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#434

Post by beepboopbeep »

humblebee wrote: post #183
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…

I wouldn't say its an attack on Bloomberg, it was the DNC who choose to changed their policy to allow him on their debate stage. They didn't have to do that.

No and bloomberg would continue to skate by with no challenges if they didn't, where as the other candidates are going through a meat grinder.

Pick your lesser evil

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#435

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

irq11 wrote: post #428
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be relieving to see this effort fail. The popularity of platforms should be based on the merit of the ideas, not money spent.

Or maybe people like Bloomberg because of his policies and positions, and concluding that it’s simply because of money is a logical fallacy.

That doesn't mirror how primary voters actually rank candidates. Polling shows that many voter's first preference and second preference are often ideologically different -- you might have a primary voter who's 1st pick is a centrist democrat, and 2nd pick is socialist democrat, and vice versa.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#436

Post by irq11 »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #435
irq11 wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe people like Bloomberg because of his policies and positions, and concluding that it’s simply because of money is a logical fallacy.

That doesn't mirror how primary voters actually rank candidates. Polling shows that many voter's first preference and second preference are often ideologically different -- you might have a primary voter who's 1st pick is a centrist democrat, and 2nd pick is socialist democrat, and vice versa.

So? That simply means that voters like inconsistent things. Or that your labels aren’t sufficient to capture their preferences.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#437

Post by torben-friis »

ethbro wrote: post #427
torben-friis wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> American citizens are now well-informed enough to know that some of the folks they talk to online are paid I'm curious: How do you think that Americans can be well informed in a system that actively attempts to feed them disinformation by a series of interested parties that have down to a science how to switch public opinion and humungous budgets? I'm not claiming that it's impossible for a single person to be well…

I agree with you, but I think it's a very debatable problem as to whether addressing the result (money buying influence in politics) or the source (voter education) is a better plan of action. Unintended consequences abound, should Citizens United be fully overturned and financing be more tightly policed. Maybe those are good, maybe they're bad. Personally, a 50% tax on any political speech spending, dedicated to fun…

There are many issues with that.

Many voters don't have the time to spend on political education, nor the interest - I actually think the lack of free time is an issue in a democracy, and it's why elderly people are such an active demographic during elections

And the elephant in the room is that propaganda works even on informed people. Just making a name familiar to you is money well spent for marketers, even if you don't buy the claims of the ad it's still an advantage.

Media is designed to be addictive in our days. We should start treating it for what it is - if something disguising as news is actively attempting to evoke an emotional response for the reader/listener to get them hooked, that thing is harmful and not a public service (state funded or not). I don't have a solution, but I do think that at some point in the future we'll look at clickbait and disguised ads the same way we look at tobacco or asbestos now.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#438

Post by AcerbicZero »

gremlinsinc wrote: post #346
12xo wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Healthy? No. But its as American as apple pie. Everything these days,in America is based on money. The entire political process is based on money (fundraising determines whether you're even on the ballot or a debate or able to be on a ticket) and controlled by money as there is a direct correlation between media spend and campaign success. The worst part is that the "media" is the one sector in our country that has t…

That's why we need public funding of elections... Bloomberg can spend a billion, and who benefits the most? MSNBC, CNN, Facebook, so of course when he's not paying they STILL prop him up because the longer he stays in the race the more $$ they collectively make, who cares if it destroys America in the process as long as there's a paycheck.

When I look at politics and government in general, my immediate take away isn't "Boy, I'd sure like to pay even more for that".

That said, I agree that money in politics is an issue, but since getting money out of politics is impossible, perhaps we should just get politics out of money. A government which is not empowered/encouraged to waste the publics money would be a nice starting point.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#439

Post by whatthesmack »

vojta_letal wrote: post #384
ColanR wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is healthy, is that an American spent his money how he liked, the American media is free enough to have reported on it, American citizens are now well-informed enough to know that some of the folks they talk to online are paid, and the American election will be based on the interactions of a free people. He's not purchasing anything - as long as Americans care enough to be informed, he's blowing hot air that no…

> is that an American spent his money how he liked Caps on campaign spending are there for reasons. A campaign should contribute to meaningful public discourse. Nothing more. > the American media is free enough to have reported on it Private media can be biased. Either explicitly (lying to peoples faces), or implicitly (self-censorship on stuff related to the owner). Surprisingly, in several countries - such as Brita…

> Private media can be biased. Either explicitly (lying to peoples faces), or implicitly (self-censorship on stuff related to the owner). Surprisingly, in several countries - such as Britain or Czech Republic - state-owned media are the one sticking to higher values.

If you can show evidence of this, I’d be interested. I’m pretty sure that /all/ media can be biased, and is. The BBC is no different or better than Fox News. They both share the news from their perspective.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#440

Post by MuffinFlavored »

deevolution wrote: post #421
ordinaryperson wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

George Washington lost his first campaign to the Virginia House of Burgess in 1755, 271-40. When he ran again 3 years later he gave away 28 gallons of rum, 50 gallons of rum punch, 34 gallons of wine, 46 gallons of beer, and two gallons of cider royal — "nearly enough for a half-gallon per voter." And guess what, he won. Considering we wouldn't even declare independence until 18 years later, it's safe to say that buy…

Andrew yang offered Americans 1k/month... maybe he should have offered 1k/month in booze, opioids and football tickets instead

I have no answers as to why Andrew Yang did not poll more than 1-5% in Iowa/New Hampshire.
Post reply on HN