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

491–500 of 553 posts

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#491

Post by beaner »

dragonwriter wrote: post #490
beaner wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay... but a perceived motive and characterization of something doesn't actually make it so.

Announced intent + evident actual intent + major effect make it a reasonable description. Sure, it's not exact in a logically pure sense, but that's not how most descriptions of things in reality rather than analytical ideals are intended.

Your characterization is wrong. "Major effect" - to what end? Not the end of banning muslims. If that's the goal, it's doing a really, really bad job at it, since the majority of muslims in the world are unaffected. The most recent 6 counties added to the list are not even predominantly muslim.

If you have a child that claims he's going to dig a hole to china, but people tell him this is futile and he should consider digging a well instead, which is an action sort-of in the same direction but meaningfully different and actually practical, and then he agrees and digs a well, then you appreciate the well and call it a "well," you don't continue to call it a "hole to China," which it clearly is not. You could, but you'd be displaying your attachment to your original anger.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#493

Post by ethbro »

torben-friis wrote: post #437
ethbro wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And yet in most countries people are able to find substantial amounts of time for education in the first ~18 years of their lives.

There's time for voter education, that's currently not being used.

As to malicious media, I hesitate to advocate censorship before I can come up with an unambiguous, simple test of what qualifies.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#494

Post by graeme »

busymom0 wrote: post #483
anonAndOn wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emoluments Clause be damned, he's cashing in more than just a book deal after this. Private dinners with the POTUS at Mar A Lago don't come cheap.

Emoluments case got thrown out the courts plus he donates 100% of his salary each year. His company’s net worth has dropped by at least 700 million when he became president. Meanwhile the previous president is now worth over 120 million and bought a $15 million mansion recently. Pelosi is worth $140 million while being a life time politician. Won’t comment further as I don’t want HN to turn into political flame war b…

>Emoluments case got thrown out the courts plus he donates 100% of his salary each year.

This isn't correct. It was thrown out because the Democrats lacked standing. It wasn't ruled on the merits: a standing argument means you are not eligible to bring a case yourself.

It's not even a sensible argument: salary is a nominal sum the government pays the president. Emoluments are gifts from foreigners. There's no logical relationship between salary and gifts.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/07/politics/emoluments-lawsuit-t...

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#495

Post by mcv »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #362
homonculus1 wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not all they care about, it's just all they have left. Their values have been systematically eliminated from education, entertainment, and the courts. Their regions are socially and economically ruined. They have some representation in politics and the media but it's mostly just exploitive lip service. Their states are used as shorthand for incest and illiteracy in the punchlines of jokes. I would guess that w…

I think you nailed it. It is so easy to dismiss their complaints and then people are surprised when it turns out that people don't like being dismissed. Who knew?

Who exactly is being dismissed here? And who's doing the mismissing? Because we're talking about Trump voters only caring about "owning the libs". That is dismissing a massive chunk of the population. Yeah, of course liberals don't like that, but you don't see them going on a destructive rampage, they just want to elect better politicians who are going to fix the country. Their complaints are entirely legitimate.

Politics isn't a game, it's about running an actual country where people live.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#496

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

lolc wrote: post #419
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'm surprised there are people not a little bit ashamed to sell their social trust. To me Bloomberg clearly is corrupting people with this. And somehow they seem to reason that they stand above it as they're shilling him (transparently, they imagine) to their friends. To me it seems that it's people who have been forced to take such a choice too many times to feel the disgrace anymore. I find it morally acceptable to…

Believe it or not, I largely agree with the sentiment expressed. I suffer no illusions in that regards.

That said, riddle me this as it may yield some interesting answers. Do you believe there is such a thing as too much power in one set of hands? If so, is one Bloomberg too much?

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#497

Post by monadic2 »

outoftheabyss wrote: post #232
remarkEon wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s true, the libs were owned. And owned hard. It’s all that matters to a lot of them. I wouldn’t be surprised if some are cheering on this Bloomberg phenomenon because of the potential damage it could do to the credibility of the Democratic Party, setting up the libs to get owned yet again in November.

Many would argue a hard left socialist would ruin the credibility of the party more. It’s happened here in the UK

Hah, the UK media got the candidate they tried to elect. Blame them.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#498

Post by monadic2 »

AlohaFractal wrote: post #418
mrguyorama wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Trump just didn't leave the Oval Office, who would stop him? The republican senate that doesn't care about him violating the constitution?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Trump's actions that you imagine to be constitutional violations are probably actions that you personally disagree with, but are not actually constitutional violations. Republicans as a group care deeply about the Constitution, and the Constitution is clear about when the term of the presidency ends. He would not have the support of the Republicans in the Senate if he chose…

> Republicans as a group care deeply about the Constitution

...you mean power. It’s just a means to an end.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#500

Post by grumple »

dang wrote: post #156
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.

Unorthodox compared to what, the pre-internet age? I question the factual validity of that; I doubt there's a campaign in the last decade that hasn't paid people to support the campaign on social media.
Post reply on HN