Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wall Street stocks tumble as investors fret over US economic slowdown

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 287 posts

Re: Wall Street stocks tumble as investors fret over US economic slowdown

#261

Post by vkou »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #254
johnnyanmac wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds exactly like a media solo issue. Except the fact that it's billionaire new media choose who gets to see what ad. I would be surpsied if part of big tech's choices on ads wasn't based on the leaders' own preferences. Especially in swing states

That would require a massive, massive conspiracy that would be difficult to hide.

Why would it?

It's not that people are forced to say things that they don't want to say. It's people who say the things that shouldn't be said don't get hired in roles where they can speak.

Do you really think that, say, CNN, or WAPO will ever pay people to broadcast views that are actually, credibly threatening to the financial well-being of their owners? Or ones that will make their viewers uncomfortably challenged?

The marketplace of ideas in American mass media has always been quite narrow and orthodox in its offerings. Sure, you can say anything you want, but it takes the support of someone with power to be able to say it in a place you will be heard. And the more media consolidates, the smaller and less diverse that field of patrons gets.

Re: Wall Street stocks tumble as investors fret over US economic slowdown

#262

Post by vkou »

ModernMech wrote: post #240
ethbr1 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't have to. Strictly in terms of self-interest, sometimes compromise can be the optimal move.

If they're willing to self-harm for the cause, then the optimal move is to grab the wheel and yank it yourself to change direction and stop the car from careening off the cliff.

Or at minimum, not gas it up.

Re: Wall Street stocks tumble as investors fret over US economic slowdown

#263

Post by gadders »

wahern wrote: post #206
gadders wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it undermines their moral arguments when they are still buying gas off their "enemy". It's not optics, it's hypocrisy.

Was it hypocritical of Ukraine to permit transit of Russian gas while they were engaged in unadulterated warfare? If yes, then we have fundamentally different ideas about how to analyze morality in a situation like this. If no, then you're being inconsistent. The reason Ukraine permitted transit is much the same the EU permitted imports of Russian gas. To shut it off abruptly would threaten support for Ukraine's defe…

The only reason Germany are that dependent is because they turned off their nuclear power plants. It's an unforced error caused by stupidity.

If you don't think funding your enemy isn't a bad move i don't know what to tell you.

Re: Wall Street stocks tumble as investors fret over US economic slowdown

#264

Post by johnnyanmac »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #254
johnnyanmac wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds exactly like a media solo issue. Except the fact that it's billionaire new media choose who gets to see what ad. I would be surpsied if part of big tech's choices on ads wasn't based on the leaders' own preferences. Especially in swing states

That would require a massive, massive conspiracy that would be difficult to hide.

Why would they need to hide it? Has anything of consequence happened to Meta from 2016? Their stance is just a private company running ads.

EU probably reacted stronger to them from Brexit, but I've heard nary a peep on the US side over such issues.

Re: Wall Street stocks tumble as investors fret over US economic slowdown

#265

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #264
disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would require a massive, massive conspiracy that would be difficult to hide.

Why would they need to hide it? Has anything of consequence happened to Meta from 2016? Their stance is just a private company running ads. EU probably reacted stronger to them from Brexit, but I've heard nary a peep on the US side over such issues.

> Has anything of consequence happened to Meta from 2016? Their stance is just a private company running ads.

I worked at Meta on ads from 2013 to 2018. Fundamentally, Cambridge Analytica and their "psychographic profiling" was absolute garbage designed to hide their real business model (getting your opponents caught with hookers and blow).

Like, at various times, we tried both using the Big 5 traits and hyper local targeting for ads, and neither of them worked (in terms of things we could measure or optimise for).

Fundamentally, Trump's success on FB in 2016 was a fundraising story, he was able to raise absurd amounts of money from small donors because (presumably) they liked his message.

> EU probably reacted stronger to them from Brexit, but I've heard nary a peep on the US side over such issues.

Again, the likelihood that shadowy propaganda swayed the Brexit referendum is low (I'm Irish and have been following this closely since before the vote). The real driver was twenty years of nonsense from the right wing newspapers, couple with the refugee crisis and austerity.

I get that it's easier to blame outside actors for political things you don't like, but that's rarely the right answer.

Re: Wall Street stocks tumble as investors fret over US economic slowdown

#266

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

vkou wrote: post #261
disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would require a massive, massive conspiracy that would be difficult to hide.

Why would it? It's not that people are forced to say things that they don't want to say. It's people who say the things that shouldn't be said don't get hired in roles where they can speak. Do you really think that, say, CNN, or WAPO will ever pay people to broadcast views that are actually, credibly threatening to the financial well-being of their owners? Or ones that will make their viewers uncomfortably challenged…

> Do you really think that, say, CNN, or WAPO will ever pay people to broadcast views that are actually, credibly threatening to the financial well-being of their owners? Or ones that will make their viewers uncomfortably challenged?

I too have read Manufacturing Consent, so now.

We're talking about social media though, which is mostly smaller independent actors trying to make a buck.

And the ads/ranking systems for Meta are really really large and complicated, and to tune them for or against a particular political candidate would be a huge effort which would most likely be done by a bunch of SF based left wing engineers and data scientists, so it seems unlikely that this would have happened without leaks (given that everything leaks for FB/Meta lately).

Re: Wall Street stocks tumble as investors fret over US economic slowdown

#267

Post by johnnyanmac »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #265
johnnyanmac wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they need to hide it? Has anything of consequence happened to Meta from 2016? Their stance is just a private company running ads. EU probably reacted stronger to them from Brexit, but I've heard nary a peep on the US side over such issues.

> Has anything of consequence happened to Meta from 2016? Their stance is just a private company running ads. I worked at Meta on ads from 2013 to 2018. Fundamentally, Cambridge Analytica and their "psychographic profiling" was absolute garbage designed to hide their real business model (getting your opponents caught with hookers and blow). Like, at various times, we tried both using the Big 5 traits and hyper local…

I wasn't necessarily saying that FB single handedly manipulated an entire nation into making huge swings on a national election. But it doesn't need to. When an election is decided by some 6-7 swing states with extremely slim margins, targeting ads to those regions can change the result. A few thousand votes swung would barely register in any mass analysis as effective (nor would it be in any other proper ad campaign. It'd in fact be a gross failure of you spent millions to get maybe a few thousand buyers), but still change the result.

I'll admit I haven't researched brexit's margins enough to see if that same theory sticks, so I won't comment much further on that example.

Now even ignoring all that: I feel the intent is the real damming part, not necessarily the success or lack thereof. As a recent example: Musk's campaign in Germany for the afd party failed overall, but it's still very bad taste for an outside party to try an influence a national election that is not representing them.

>I get that it's easier to blame outside actors for political things you don't like, but that's rarely the right answer.

There is very rarely one single issue that affects political things. But I feel it's important to point out all attack vectors and try to at least attempt to make sure policies work as intended.

The ultimate issue in all of this is people ignoring their best interests and falling for lies and misinformation (from all sources), but this chain was focused on media ads, so that's what I discussed.

Re: Wall Street stocks tumble as investors fret over US economic slowdown

#268

Post by gadders »

mopsi wrote: post #208
gadders wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it undermines their moral arguments when they are still buying gas off their "enemy". It's not optics, it's hypocrisy.

I think it proves the opposite: an 81% reduction in a few years is remarkable. Heating and power generation infrastructure is not something you can pivot quickly. These transitions usually take decades.

I think giving your enemy money is beyond stupid.

Re: Wall Street stocks tumble as investors fret over US economic slowdown

#269

Post by mattmaroon »

ModernMech wrote: post #241
mattmaroon wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's commonly said Presidents get 100 days in office to enact the bulk of their platform. It's an approximation, of course, but it's about then that the new-to-office approval rating bump starts to wane and Congress starts gearing up for midterms. We're about half way there. If the economy is in bad shape in May, I would not be surprised if Congress intervenes on tariffs. The fear of being primaried by MAGA loyalists…

You're framing this as an incentive for them to moderate their positions, but I'm reading it as a motive for them to rig elections.

I don't think either party ever didn't have that incentive. If elections could feasibly be rigged then they already are I'm sure.

Re: Wall Street stocks tumble as investors fret over US economic slowdown

#270

Post by yieldcrv »

intended wrote: post #256
yieldcrv wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so far, Apple says they'll invest $500bn to bring their supply chain stateside, Softbank $100bn-$200bn, "Stargate" Group is supposed to be $65bn and that was just to curry favor as well as get in front of the tariff plans we'll see if they follow through, but those count as American entrepreneurs too if there are disruptions on smaller scales, some people will take the risk, and there will be winners and losers as wi…

Tariffs don’t achieve this, and it misdiagnoses the problem in the first place. Manufacturing is now increasingly automated, so it doesn’t employ as many people anymore. This is an issue India faces as does every developing economy. Economic growth is increasingly dependent on service sector growth. Moving supply chains also requires weaker labor laws, and lower salaries for workers, than minimum wage, to be competit…

America has many American workers at minimum wage and above. (and below)

In this specific sector, the entire industry including retail has shown they will pay many multiples of a higher price for GPUs and cloud services. So if a US grown supply already cost that much out the gate, there is already examples of the market being able to bare that.

Post reply on HN