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

341–350 of 553 posts

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#341

Post by Thrymr »

dukoid wrote: post #299
akhilcacharya wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It was a serious question where I don't know the answer... Shares are publicly traded at NASDAQ. The Murdoch family seems to hold 39% (of the shares with voting power?) according to Wikipedia... Not sure how feasible it would be to buy enough of the rest if money wasn't an issue?

That would require a hostile takeover, which is no simple thing. News Corp has a market cap of >$8.6 billion. It almost never happens that anyone can buy a controlling interest (of a sizeable corporation) on the open market without an explicit agreement from the board of directors.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#342

Post by ajoy »

This is the game that is being played : https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-202... (The Billion-Dollar Disinformation Campaign to Reelect the President). The article is a little biased, but shows the sophistication required to play.

To bring a contrarian pt of view: If you are a billionaire and you ask for donations, people might say, "Why are you asking us for money, why don't use your own?"

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#343

Post by omegaworks »

zelias wrote: post #339
omegaworks wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I respect the guy that's said that very thing since he started running. Bernie is proving that we can win without corporate PAC money and he has a plan to get dark money out of politics.

I'm with you there, no doubt, but lately I've wondered how effectively Bernie could accomplish this. Only Nixon could go to China, as the saying goes. EDIT: I don't mean this in terms of electability -- I think Bernie can beat Trump hands down. What I mean is accomplishing what he sets out to do in terms of policy implementation -- which, as the Obama years have shown us, is not as easy as it sounds.

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.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#344

Post by jdkee »

tropo wrote: post #274
jdkee wrote: post #216

Why is it healthy for American democracy to have an oligarch purchase the U.S. Presidency like a shiny, new yacht?

The alternatives are worse. The choices: 1. purchase it with their own money 2. purchase it with money from bribes 3. blackmail party insiders for the nomination and support Using their own money is the cleanest and most honest way to do things.

4. Fund federal elections with federal dollars.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#345

Post by gremlinsinc »

zelias wrote: post #339
omegaworks wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I respect the guy that's said that very thing since he started running. Bernie is proving that we can win without corporate PAC money and he has a plan to get dark money out of politics.

I'm with you there, no doubt, but lately I've wondered how effectively Bernie could accomplish this. Only Nixon could go to China, as the saying goes. EDIT: I don't mean this in terms of electability -- I think Bernie can beat Trump hands down. What I mean is accomplishing what he sets out to do in terms of policy implementation -- which, as the Obama years have shown us, is not as easy as it sounds.

Ask Mike Bloomberg how he thinks Bernie would do against Trump. https://twitter.com/shaunking/status/1225440451152547840

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#346

Post by gremlinsinc »

12xo wrote: post #294
jdkee wrote: post #216

Why is it healthy for American democracy to have an oligarch purchase the U.S. Presidency like a shiny, new yacht?

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.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#348

Post by HBKXNCUO »

leftyted wrote: post #263
rtkwe wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big difference is Bloomberg currently is 100% self funding his campaign while the '16 Hillary campaign had a lot of money yes but it came from donors supporting her. Bloomberg is self funding and is only where he is because of the massive amount of money he's throwing around from his own pocket. Also it's not about explicitly buying votes but there's a lot of lower information voters out there who currently are pri…

> A big difference is Bloomberg currently is 100% self funding his campaign while the '16 Hillary campaign had a lot of money yes but it came from donors supporting her. Bloomberg is self funding and is only where he is because of the massive amount of money he's throwing around from his own pocket. It's not clear at all that Bloomberg would have failed had he run a traditional campaign. I'm not bothered by self-fund…

>Winning elections is about convincing people, not brainwashing them.

Are you suggesting that political advertisements don't use the same sorts of psychological manipulation as non-political advertisements? Or you do consider psychological manipulation to just be a form of "convincing"?

>Your perspective is that voters are dumb animals who flock to whoever spends the most on ads.

Voters are human beings, most of which are highly susceptible to being manipulated through an array of time-tested psychological tricks that advertisers have been using for over 100 years.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#349

Post by gremlinsinc »

ColanR wrote: post #324
jdkee wrote: post #216

Why is it healthy for American democracy to have an oligarch purchase the U.S. Presidency like a shiny, new yacht?

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…

Right the media is 'free' enough to report on it... Krystal Ball, Cenk, TYT, sure they HAVE talked about it, but the major netwroks like CNN and MSNBC? Not really, if they did he might not get so far, and then would stop literally throwing cash at them by buying ads. Public funding of elections needs to end, and Bloomberg is literally showing what's possible.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#350

Post by burtonator »

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.

Why would he want to change the rules? They've spent so long trying to bend them for their own advantage.
Post reply on HN