LinkedIn Co-Founder Apologizes for Deception in Alabama Senate Race(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
LinkedIn Co-Founder Apologizes for Deception in Alabama Senate Race
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/26/us/reid-hoffman-alabama-election-disinformation.html
38 comments
Is apology in this case admission of guilt? And if so, can there be judicial intervention?
This actually something that needs to get a special investigator too.
Really really disastrous.
Why a "Special" Investigator? This isn't law enforcement investigating itself.
Basically, he’s too rich to know where he’s spending his money.
A good problem to have, but clearly he recognized this was a big screwup and he fessed up. Not more one can ask for.
A good problem to have, but clearly he recognized this was a big screwup and he fessed up. Not more one can ask for.
Quite refreshing to see this after the fb brouhaha
Somehow another group of political actives using such tactics is much more frightening than refreshing to me because of what it seems to suggest lies ahead.
> Basically, he’s too rich to know where he’s spending his money.
If you have that problem, you have too much money.
I've periodically considered a limit on the money people can have. I think if we limited people to a maximum wealth, after which taxes were 90+%, it'd go a fair way to fixing a lot of the issues with the world. Something like 10 million dollars seems reasonable.
(Note: this ignores all the ways people would weasel around any real-world legislation. Please don't argue about that, it's a thought experiment.)
If you have that problem, you have too much money.
I've periodically considered a limit on the money people can have. I think if we limited people to a maximum wealth, after which taxes were 90+%, it'd go a fair way to fixing a lot of the issues with the world. Something like 10 million dollars seems reasonable.
(Note: this ignores all the ways people would weasel around any real-world legislation. Please don't argue about that, it's a thought experiment.)
> I've periodically considered a limit on the money people can have.
Same here, in a similar way, too, much like air friction works -- the faster you're already going, the more energy you need to expend to go even faster (i.e. going from 200 mph to 300 mph requires MUCH less additional than going from 9900 to 10000). But there needn't (and IMO shouldn't) be a hard cutoff.
Same here, in a similar way, too, much like air friction works -- the faster you're already going, the more energy you need to expend to go even faster (i.e. going from 200 mph to 300 mph requires MUCH less additional than going from 9900 to 10000). But there needn't (and IMO shouldn't) be a hard cutoff.
Can corporations have unlimited money? 10 million barely makes payroll for some medium-large businesses.
And a thought experiment isn't not subject to discussion... otherwise why post it?
And a thought experiment isn't not subject to discussion... otherwise why post it?
I'm open to discussion, just not "this is stupid because people would hire tax lawyers which would ruin it". I know that, but it's a fanciful idea.
Anyways, a limit on personal wealth would need to be accompanied by a limit on corporate wealth (or corporate size, or some other lever).
Really, the thing that it all would require to make work would be the ability to make things illegal on the basis of intent (e.g. intent to circumvent), which gets sufficiently close to thought-crime that makes me uncomfortable (and realistically makes the idea nothing but a pipe-dream). However, without some mechanism for preemptively dealing with rule-lawyering and such, I can't see any way to actively improve society with such a measure.
It'd be nice if there was a sort of duck-typing for laws. If it quacks like a tax haven, and walks like a tax haven, the technical definition of it is irrelevant, and it should be treated as a tax haven/whatever mechanism for tax avoidance. Unfortunately, that sort of rule-of-law requires a significant value-judgement by the judiciary that is untenable given the current legal structure, at least in the US.
Anyways, a limit on personal wealth would need to be accompanied by a limit on corporate wealth (or corporate size, or some other lever).
Really, the thing that it all would require to make work would be the ability to make things illegal on the basis of intent (e.g. intent to circumvent), which gets sufficiently close to thought-crime that makes me uncomfortable (and realistically makes the idea nothing but a pipe-dream). However, without some mechanism for preemptively dealing with rule-lawyering and such, I can't see any way to actively improve society with such a measure.
It'd be nice if there was a sort of duck-typing for laws. If it quacks like a tax haven, and walks like a tax haven, the technical definition of it is irrelevant, and it should be treated as a tax haven/whatever mechanism for tax avoidance. Unfortunately, that sort of rule-of-law requires a significant value-judgement by the judiciary that is untenable given the current legal structure, at least in the US.
Sure, as long as they aren't using massive tax avoidance schemes to not pay the taxes. Also they aren't persons.
Don’t you think this would have an impact on innovation? The chance at getting mega rich drives people to take big risks.
No, I don't primarily because you have a similar chance to getting hit and killed by a car. Does that have an impact on innovation?
Really, I've never met anyone who is actively "hustling" (or whatever the bullshit flavor term-of-the-week is) to try to make mega-millions who's someone I actually think would make decent decisions with those mega-millions. Everyone I've met who I think would actually make decent choices just wants a comfortable life, maybe a bigger house and a few more vacations a year, and to do something interesting for the sake of it being interesting.
Really, I've never met anyone who is actively "hustling" (or whatever the bullshit flavor term-of-the-week is) to try to make mega-millions who's someone I actually think would make decent decisions with those mega-millions. Everyone I've met who I think would actually make decent choices just wants a comfortable life, maybe a bigger house and a few more vacations a year, and to do something interesting for the sake of it being interesting.
> No, I don't primarily because you have a similar chance to getting hit and killed by a car. Does that have an impact on innovation?
This is... not a very good comparison for a multitude of reasons. Not the least of which being that not everyone has the same chance of being hit and killed by a car, of course...
> Really, I've never met anyone who is actively "hustling"
Have you considered that maybe some of the very rich ended up being worth quite a bit of money without that being their explicit goal? I ended up being very successful in my niche without ever dreaming of my company turning into what it is today, or what it may become tomorrow, and I live extremely modestly in a cheap townhome and drive old used cars.
This is... not a very good comparison for a multitude of reasons. Not the least of which being that not everyone has the same chance of being hit and killed by a car, of course...
> Really, I've never met anyone who is actively "hustling"
Have you considered that maybe some of the very rich ended up being worth quite a bit of money without that being their explicit goal? I ended up being very successful in my niche without ever dreaming of my company turning into what it is today, or what it may become tomorrow, and I live extremely modestly in a cheap townhome and drive old used cars.
> This is... not a very good comparison for a multitude of reasons. Not the least of which being that not everyone has the same chance of being hit and killed by a car, of course...
That's also true for the chances of becoming mega-rich. Can you name any actually successful person who got into the business they're in because they wanted to be come rich, rather then because they were doing something that interested them, and were in the right place a the right time?
------
The point is not that seeking to work in a niche where you are successful isn't valid, it's that there is a point at which point people accruing more money is basically ridiculous. 10 million dollars is a 100 thousand dollars a year for more then my entire lifetime. I live in a ridiculously expensive west-coast town and I'd be more then comfortable on that income. Having more money then that basically serves no purpose for the economy, or civilization at large.
Scaling the limit up just becomes more transparently ludicrous. What reasonable lifestyle can consume more then 10 thousand dollars a month!
That's also true for the chances of becoming mega-rich. Can you name any actually successful person who got into the business they're in because they wanted to be come rich, rather then because they were doing something that interested them, and were in the right place a the right time?
------
The point is not that seeking to work in a niche where you are successful isn't valid, it's that there is a point at which point people accruing more money is basically ridiculous. 10 million dollars is a 100 thousand dollars a year for more then my entire lifetime. I live in a ridiculously expensive west-coast town and I'd be more then comfortable on that income. Having more money then that basically serves no purpose for the economy, or civilization at large.
Scaling the limit up just becomes more transparently ludicrous. What reasonable lifestyle can consume more then 10 thousand dollars a month!
Pegging limits to subjective personal thoughts is pretty ludicrous, in my opinion. That's the height of authoritarianism and rule by random dictation. Whether or not that's a good idea, it's absolutely a horrible process, which is a lot more important than enacting good laws via force.
I did say it's just a thought experiment. Though to be fair, I don't see it being dramatically more random then what we have now.
The numbers here are mostly spitballing, and not based on much, but the idea I think is worth considering, if for no reason other then the contrast it provides with the way things currently are.
The numbers here are mostly spitballing, and not based on much, but the idea I think is worth considering, if for no reason other then the contrast it provides with the way things currently are.
I think 10 million dollars is as much incentive as 100 million for anyone trying to make it big. After a certain amount for most people it is just a lot of extra zeros.
The idea that someone who would strive to do something great would lose interest at being limited to 10 million is laughable.
The idea that someone who would strive to do something great would lose interest at being limited to 10 million is laughable.
Most innovators aren't striving to reach some grand self-motivating concept. The world is much better off for having people like the Collison brothers, who see that a moderately sized piece of infrastructure is too complicated and try to earn a lot of money by making it simpler.
I'm not sure I follow. They were still motivated by money. I doubt there was some altruistic revelation that got them incredibly interested in processing credit cards.
Sorry, that's my point. They were motivated by money and not some deep underlying passion for payment processing, meaning there's no way Stripe would be what it is in a world where they could only make $10 million each from it.
Ah sorry I misread. And that could be the case but I see a net positive from it. They might do enough to get theirs and then once they flatline it becomes someone else's opportunity.
For example Bezos might have had enough from just being the bookstore of the internet. Everything else Amazon does would be open to small business fighting it out.
There are still shareholders for public companies to please so just hitting the mark might not mean just stop innovating.
For example Bezos might have had enough from just being the bookstore of the internet. Everything else Amazon does would be open to small business fighting it out.
There are still shareholders for public companies to please so just hitting the mark might not mean just stop innovating.
That was literally tax law in the 1950s.
Your first line is a very uncharitable way of discussing the issue at hand. Reid Hoffman supported a group who he probably did not think was going to use Republican-style disinformation tactics, they did, he found out through reporting, and he stopped.
How many businesses do you shop at / organizations do you support that potentially do underhanded things that you aren't tracking because you are busy living your life? I'd guarantee there's at least one doing something ridiculous you are supporting with no knowledge, but because you (or I, or anyone common) aren't among the top 100 richest people in the United States, no one cares what we're up to.
How many businesses do you shop at / organizations do you support that potentially do underhanded things that you aren't tracking because you are busy living your life? I'd guarantee there's at least one doing something ridiculous you are supporting with no knowledge, but because you (or I, or anyone common) aren't among the top 100 richest people in the United States, no one cares what we're up to.
[deleted]
However misinformation for engagement didn't bother him on LinkedIn.
Every part of culture, every discussion, everything is a life and death political fight to half the country, whether on the left or the right. In their eyes, if you’re not fighting against the other side you are complicit and the ends justify the means to power.
Interesting how so many leftists who hate the koch brothers and their big money spending are fine with billionaire tech elites throwing their money around
But I suppose that's not surprising considering the top 10 richest districts and 73 of the top 100 voted democrat
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/midterms-one-party-controls-w...
Citizens United needs to be overturned ASAP
But I suppose that's not surprising considering the top 10 richest districts and 73 of the top 100 voted democrat
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/midterms-one-party-controls-w...
Citizens United needs to be overturned ASAP
Huh? Overturning Citizens United is a key goal of “leftists”, so much so that Bernie Sanders talked about it continuously during his campaign.
The entire GOP continues to vilify Soros though and seem perfectly content with Citizens United.
The entire GOP continues to vilify Soros though and seem perfectly content with Citizens United.
> They also used thousands of Twitter accounts to make it appear as if automated Russian bot accounts were following and supporting Mr. Moore, according to an internal report on the project. The apparent Russian support for Mr. Moore drew broad news media coverage.
also from https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/12/22/faceboo...
> Morgan’s efforts have stirred controversy because of his role at New Knowledge, which has helped Senate lawmakers uncover the means in which Russian agents weaponized Facebook, Twitter a
So person in charge of detecting "the Russians" couldn't find enough Russians and so he made his own Russians and possibly altered the results of US elections.
also from https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/12/22/faceboo...
> Morgan’s efforts have stirred controversy because of his role at New Knowledge, which has helped Senate lawmakers uncover the means in which Russian agents weaponized Facebook, Twitter a
So person in charge of detecting "the Russians" couldn't find enough Russians and so he made his own Russians and possibly altered the results of US elections.
> But at least a few Democrats thought their party could not shun such tactics entirely if others were going to continue to use them.
And so the deception arms race has begun. Social media messaging is a toxic influence when centrally managed, inherently anonymous, or publicly accessible.
And so the deception arms race has begun. Social media messaging is a toxic influence when centrally managed, inherently anonymous, or publicly accessible.
Why choose white hat or black hat when you can profit from both sides. Ingenious!
—-
“The money went to a small group of social media experts that included Jonathon Morgan, the chief executive of New Knowledge, a cybersecurity firm.
They created a Facebook page intended to look like the work of conservative Alabamians, and used it to try to split Republicans and promote a conservative write-in candidate to take votes from Mr. Moore.
They also used thousands of Twitter accounts to make it appear as if automated Russian bot accounts were following and supporting Mr. Moore, according to an internal report on the project. The apparent Russian support for Mr. Moore drew broad news media coverage.”