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

131–140 of 553 posts

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#131

Post by goatinaboat »

jacob019 wrote: post #114
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…

I agree. There is no way a guy like Trump could have won without being independently wealthy. Will Trump spend one moment reflecting on the moral way to spend his enormous reelection campaign budget?

There is no way a guy like Trump could have won without being independently wealthy.

Are you sure about that? Trump raises massive donations at every rally.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#132

Post by pjlegato »

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 earned dollars to install someone in the most powerful office in the world out of faith in democracy. Donors and their groups -- especially the large and important ones -- are almost always aligned with explicit policy (and often persoanl) quid pro quo expectations, should the candidate win the election.

Bloomberg, by contrast, is spending his own money. He's not beholden to anyone's interests or greed or kickbacks or special interests. Whether you like or dislike his policy proposals, surely this point, at least, is better than a candidate with a wealthy donor network of obscure motives pulling the strings behind the scenes.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#133

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

danans wrote: post #110
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 do not subscribe to the 'they are basically children, we have to protect them'. He is paying you to leverage your reputation and trust networks, and you are extending your reputation and trust networks to him for a fee. It doesn't matter that you think you don't subscribe to belief about people you posited above, because if you don't believe in Bloomberg's message, you are effectively deceiving those in your trus…

I have no problem saying 'he paid me to do it you know'. Kinda undermines the message. Frankly, just the mere fact we are talking about it undermines that message. And it, oddly, seems to be mainstream consensus as well.

So maybe it is not all doom and gloom?

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#134

Post by deeblering4 »

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.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#135

Post by the_gastropod »

rayiner wrote: post #122
anthm1988 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe people are not idiots and are capable of judging their own interest. He's buying up media and politicians. People can't decide from themselves when he's spending a billion dollars to shape the narrative. If Bloomberg gets elected the US is done. It's not longer anything resembling democracy and the only thing that will save us from the new order will be revolution.

> He's buying up media and politicians. People can't decide from themselves when he's spending a billion dollars to shape the narrative Companies spend billions of dollars on advertising, but plenty of people decide for themselves.

Companies spend billions of dollars on advertising _because it works_. Virtually everyone thinks they're too smart to be influenced by it. And they'd be wrong.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#136

Post by throwlaplace »

pb7 wrote: post #71
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…

Surprised to see such naive takes on HN. Wealthy people don’t “hoard wealth like a dragon”. It’s invested in companies that translate to products, services, and jobs.

but those companies themselves hoard money so what's the difference?

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/28/apple-q1-2019-cash-hoard-her...

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/07/microsoft-apple-and-alphabet...

edit: why did i get downvoted?

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#137

Post by vanusa »

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…

Many here seem upset at the idea that Bloomberg is spending a lot of his own money to run for president.

No - it's not that he's spending his own money. But rather, how he's spending it.

And they're not "upset". They're calmly pointing out the obvious: that this kind of attempted influence buying is profoundly dystopian and antidemocratic.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#138

Post by savingGrace »

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…

What are you going to do with your $2500? ;)

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#139

Post by allovernow »

Shilling on social media appeared overnight. Literally a switch was turned on and suddenly hundreds of "totally organic" posts about Bloomberg are popping up everywhere mimicking local forum/board subcultures. Many of the people seem to be posting somewhat ironically, though it seems his campaign has attempted to embrace the same style of "no press is bad press" attention that undoubtedly contributed to Trump's election.

It's pretty gross to watch someone literally buy an election. I hope he fails. But there's a good chance he'll get far, because though he is running as a Democrat, many of his past statements regarding women, minorities, and stop and frisk appeal to the non-PC Republican sentiment that worked in the last election. And you can count on the fact that the average person won't understand that none of this buzz is organic.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#140

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

mtalantikite wrote: post #130
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." Have you met people?

It is very easy to succumb to cynicism as it allows for an easy response to just about any issue in life.

For the record, I hear you. There are times I want to throw my hands in the air. But.. about 4 years I was driving through Ohio and I saw 'Save us Trump' sign on lawn of a delapidated house..Probably one of the saddest things I have seen in my short life.

I guess what I am saying is, it is really easy to dismiss. It is so much harder to try to understand others.

Post reply on HN