Silicon Valley, the new lobbying monster(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
Silicon Valley, the new lobbying monster
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/10/14/silicon-valley-the-new-lobbying-monster
328 comments
https://archive.ph/94cDH
I like how they started with different values compared to the old American companies (oil, cigarettes, defense).
But they ended up exactly the same. Helping the worst regimes, all-in in military complex, taking advantage of screen addiction and teen insecurities.
But hey at least they don’t wear white collars like the old bad guys.
But they ended up exactly the same. Helping the worst regimes, all-in in military complex, taking advantage of screen addiction and teen insecurities.
But hey at least they don’t wear white collars like the old bad guys.
> different values compared to the old American companies (oil, cigarettes, defense).
To play devil's advocate a bit, I think those old industries started out just as idealistic as the tech sector. The oil companies pursued amazing feats of science and engineering to power the new industrial economy. The defense companies made remarkable technological advances to help deter Soviet aggression and win the space race. And before the link to lung cancer was discovered, tobacco was like coffee: it gave people a nice cognitive boost, as well as possibly helping them stay thin.
To play devil's advocate a bit, I think those old industries started out just as idealistic as the tech sector. The oil companies pursued amazing feats of science and engineering to power the new industrial economy. The defense companies made remarkable technological advances to help deter Soviet aggression and win the space race. And before the link to lung cancer was discovered, tobacco was like coffee: it gave people a nice cognitive boost, as well as possibly helping them stay thin.
> And before the link to lung cancer was discovered, tobacco was like coffee: it gave people a nice cognitive boost
Now you can just buy nicotine products for that boost with a substantially reduced risk profile (it's not a carcinogen). Some writeup on it: https://gwern.net/nicotine
Now you can just buy nicotine products for that boost with a substantially reduced risk profile (it's not a carcinogen). Some writeup on it: https://gwern.net/nicotine
> it gave people a nice cognitive boost,
Does nicotine give a cognitive boost, or does it return one to their pre-addiction baseline?
Does nicotine give a cognitive boost, or does it return one to their pre-addiction baseline?
Same question applies perfectly to caffeine. I might just be justifying my addiction, but it’s possible this is still worthwhile as it allows one to manually select when they want to expend their mental energy, overriding the normally semirandom fluctuations brought on by exhaustion, mood, etc.
A big difference is that caffeine isn't addictive. It may seem like it, and you do get a few headaches when you quit cold turkey, but you just don't get the intense graving you get with addictions.
There are tools for measuring the level of dependence and addiction for different substances (like the severity of dependence scale.)
You may also be interested in studies on caffeine dependence, like: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3777290/
> Numerous controlled laboratory investigations reviewed in this article show that caffeine produces behavioral and physiological effects similar to other drugs of dependence. Moreover, several recent clinical studies indicate that caffeine dependence is a clinically meaningful disorder that affects a nontrivial proportion of caffeine users.
You may also be interested in studies on caffeine dependence, like: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3777290/
> Numerous controlled laboratory investigations reviewed in this article show that caffeine produces behavioral and physiological effects similar to other drugs of dependence. Moreover, several recent clinical studies indicate that caffeine dependence is a clinically meaningful disorder that affects a nontrivial proportion of caffeine users.
> A big difference is that caffeine isn't addictive. It may seem like it, and you do get a few headaches when you quit cold turkey, but you just don't get the intense graving you get with addictions.
I'm curious what definition of "addiction" you're using to arrive at the conclusion that caffeine isn't addictive.
I'm curious what definition of "addiction" you're using to arrive at the conclusion that caffeine isn't addictive.
Isn’t the standard definition that you continue to use the drug despite it causing serious negative problems in your life?
> Isn’t the standard definition that you continue to use the drug despite it causing serious negative problems in your life?
There's no one standard definition of "addiction", and most concise definitions (one or two lines) are extremely fragile and break down when you try to apply them in any meaningful context.
By this definition you're putting forth, caffeine certainly could be addictive, as could any substance - and in fact, nearly any behavior, which is why professionals generally frown upon using this measure definitionally, because it leads to pseudoscientific terms like "X addiction", for absurd values of X.
There's no one standard definition of "addiction", and most concise definitions (one or two lines) are extremely fragile and break down when you try to apply them in any meaningful context.
By this definition you're putting forth, caffeine certainly could be addictive, as could any substance - and in fact, nearly any behavior, which is why professionals generally frown upon using this measure definitionally, because it leads to pseudoscientific terms like "X addiction", for absurd values of X.
[deleted]
I think you’d be surprised. When i quit coffee cold turkey, I was basically out of commission for a week. Mentally I felt and functioned as though I was running a heavy fever, I could never feel full, and I felt exhausted and ready to sleep the moment I woke up. The headaches were constant and agonizing for about a whole week, easily worse than a migraine, and I had weird mood swings where I’d suddenly feel very anxious or sad out of nowhere. The difference is I was probably drinking 300mg a day or so.
There is fairly good evidence that nicotine causes some mild cognitive benefits beyond the baseline. Of course there are also downsides even separate from the effects of smoking.
https://peterattiamd.com/ama23/
https://peterattiamd.com/ama23/
It actually helps Alzheimer’s patients regain their faculties, if only temporarily.
I think nicotine is one of the very few components that can enhance some brain functions very slightly. It does however have far more negative side effects as its role in nature would suggest it would have.
This is an exception and other common drugs like caffeine that do not have any positive effects at all. Or any other drug for that matter.
This is an exception and other common drugs like caffeine that do not have any positive effects at all. Or any other drug for that matter.
This is in no way to defend smoking. I've never smoked, and good riddance to it.
However:
Amidst all the talk about the causes of obesity, surely "not smoking anymore" is in there somewhere?
However:
Amidst all the talk about the causes of obesity, surely "not smoking anymore" is in there somewhere?
They aren't defending smoking. They're referring to the industry and its ethos when it originally grew. While smoking was established as being bad for health in the mid-20th century, this wasn't as clear in the late 19th and early 20th, when the tobacco industry boomed and brought many jobs to the southern US economy.
Who's "they"?
I take it you're being purposefully obtuse, but I was referring to the person you responded to.
> I take it you're being purposefully obtuse
No, but you're being purposefully hyper-sensitive.
If you're replying to someone higher, you should hit Reply on that comment. Not on someone lower down.
No, but you're being purposefully hyper-sensitive.
If you're replying to someone higher, you should hit Reply on that comment. Not on someone lower down.
No, that was honestly how I interpreted your comment. That may have been the wrong interpretation, but your two word reply didn't leave me with much. I possibly misinterpreted your first comment also, but I wasn't really sure how you were leaning there, whether it be just an absurdity or a question honestly pondered.
OK. All you see when you hit Threads is what YOU said. Not what the person above you said.
Meth addicts are often very thin as well. /s
Personally I would argue that the addiction simply shifted for most Americans. It was cigarettes, now it is food, particularly ultra-processed food.
There's a large subset of people, the majority in my opinion, who are somewhat prone to addiction. Most are just a wee bit prone. They certainly won't peruse the streets for drugs. But, if something is readily available and socially accepted, they'll do it.
Before this was smoking, now its ultra-processed foods. Fast food, junk food, sweets type stuff.
It's probably still a boon, I'd say. I mean, I think being obese is probably healthier than smoking. But we didn't really "solve" anything, we just moved the problem.
There's a large subset of people, the majority in my opinion, who are somewhat prone to addiction. Most are just a wee bit prone. They certainly won't peruse the streets for drugs. But, if something is readily available and socially accepted, they'll do it.
Before this was smoking, now its ultra-processed foods. Fast food, junk food, sweets type stuff.
It's probably still a boon, I'd say. I mean, I think being obese is probably healthier than smoking. But we didn't really "solve" anything, we just moved the problem.
The connection is even closer. Tobacco company extensively invested in the highly processed food industry and brought their advertisement experts in. The obesity crisis (and addiction to sugary and fatty processed foods) is not an accident, it's the result of a sophisticated advertisement campaign directed by the brains behind tobacco and alcohol campaigns.
This seems ideologically rather than evidence-driven.
Smokers used to claim that it suppressed their appetites. Not being a smoker, or obese, I wouldn't know. But it seems plausible as a (partial) cause.
Smokers used to claim that it suppressed their appetites. Not being a smoker, or obese, I wouldn't know. But it seems plausible as a (partial) cause.
I mean, of course I have no evidence because nobody is really looking into it. In my opinion, despite the fact we have many tens if not hundreds of millions of people eating themselves to death, we (socially) are incredibly hesitant to consider overconsumption an addiction.
But when people are dying slowly, and painfully, by their own hand and they can't stop, I personally consider that an addiction. In addition, we know ultra-processed foods are designed to invoke as much pleasure in the user as possible. In many ways, they suffer the same hyper-optimization that modern cigarettes do.
There's also some* evidence that part of the Tobacco industry shifted to food as Tobacco in the US died off. This is more circumstantial evidence. I think the "hard" evidence is that everyone smoked and was thin, now nobody smokes, and everyone is obese.
Regardless, I think we need harder and more proven solutions to the obesity epidemic. I think "willpower!" isn't working out for us, on a large scale. I'm rooting for Ozempic. And, fun fact, Ozempic also curbs nicotine and alcohol addiction.
But when people are dying slowly, and painfully, by their own hand and they can't stop, I personally consider that an addiction. In addition, we know ultra-processed foods are designed to invoke as much pleasure in the user as possible. In many ways, they suffer the same hyper-optimization that modern cigarettes do.
There's also some* evidence that part of the Tobacco industry shifted to food as Tobacco in the US died off. This is more circumstantial evidence. I think the "hard" evidence is that everyone smoked and was thin, now nobody smokes, and everyone is obese.
Regardless, I think we need harder and more proven solutions to the obesity epidemic. I think "willpower!" isn't working out for us, on a large scale. I'm rooting for Ozempic. And, fun fact, Ozempic also curbs nicotine and alcohol addiction.
Not very surprising, considering it’s the same companies using the same playbook. I’m not so sure that being obese is healthier than smoking, being obese might not give you cancer but it will certainly mess with your heart, and I would not be surprised if someone who smoked for the same amount of time someone else was obese ends up having a better prognosis after quitting.
Obesity is associated with many forms of cancer. See https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/o...
To be fair, the real risk of smoking is not actually lung cancer. Most smokers don't get lung cancer.
It's heart and lung damage. Congestive heart failure, heart attacks, COPD, etc. A lot of these are slow, painful, and terminal.
It's heart and lung damage. Congestive heart failure, heart attacks, COPD, etc. A lot of these are slow, painful, and terminal.
One similarity between the scenarios: fake democracy, with minimal (and easily compromised) checks and balances.
Theatre at its finest. But this shan't ever be discussed.
Theatre at its finest. But this shan't ever be discussed.
> I like how they started with different values compared to the old American companies (oil, cigarettes, defense).
They started with the same values: make as much money as possible, even if it destroys the world. Any entreaties to the contrary were a smokescreen to deflect criticism until they could shore up their position. This is the natural end-state of incentivizing profit maximization.
They started with the same values: make as much money as possible, even if it destroys the world. Any entreaties to the contrary were a smokescreen to deflect criticism until they could shore up their position. This is the natural end-state of incentivizing profit maximization.
Exactly. Silicon Valley used to be countercultural, an alternative to Corporate America. Yes, there was always a money-making emphasis, and there’s a long history of less-than-ethical practices, but this was countered by many positive aspects of the Valley, such as the paying-it-forward ethos and the feeling that technology matters. There’s a reason Xerox PARC was placed in Palo Alto and not in New England. There’s a reason why many of personal computing’s pioneers had a countercultural vibe.
Today Silicon Valley is the establishment. It seems less like the nerd mecca it used to be (remember Weird Stuff?) and is now a place that is much more obsessed with money. When a basic 1960s suburban tract house within a reasonable commute from work costs more than $2 million, it’s hard not to be obsessed with money. There are still good people and awesome technologies in Silicon Valley, which is one of the main reasons I’ve decided to stay in the Bay Area, but it seems like some companies in Silicon Valley have gone absolutely mercenary, and they have eroded the goodwill the area had as recently as a decade ago.
But I think this is part of the natural evolution of industry. The same could be said about the history of the railroad and car industries in America. Think of how essential telecommunications and electricity are to modern society, yet I’ve yet to meet a person who loves Comcast and PG&E.
Today Silicon Valley is the establishment. It seems less like the nerd mecca it used to be (remember Weird Stuff?) and is now a place that is much more obsessed with money. When a basic 1960s suburban tract house within a reasonable commute from work costs more than $2 million, it’s hard not to be obsessed with money. There are still good people and awesome technologies in Silicon Valley, which is one of the main reasons I’ve decided to stay in the Bay Area, but it seems like some companies in Silicon Valley have gone absolutely mercenary, and they have eroded the goodwill the area had as recently as a decade ago.
But I think this is part of the natural evolution of industry. The same could be said about the history of the railroad and car industries in America. Think of how essential telecommunications and electricity are to modern society, yet I’ve yet to meet a person who loves Comcast and PG&E.
I used to think this was the case as well, even though I suffered through the reality: computing was always a rich person's game. Even more so in the early days. Even a C64 was an upper middle class toy. Cosplaying counter cultural (really well) doesn't change the fact that if you cold afford to build the foundation of the computer industry, you were at least very aligned with capital. Now that alignment has been exposed, highlighted and scaled to global proportions.
My eyes were opened when I started realizing the Wikipedia pages of luminaries in the software field had blue links to their famous parents and those parents also had blue links to _their_ famous parents
Hell I’m guilty of some myself. I was surprised early in my career when I found out that most of my peers did not have a computer and internet access as children in the early 90s
Hell I’m guilty of some myself. I was surprised early in my career when I found out that most of my peers did not have a computer and internet access as children in the early 90s
Who?
I checked Ritchie, Thompson, McCarthy, Sussman, Wirth… none had blue name parents.
I checked Ritchie, Thompson, McCarthy, Sussman, Wirth… none had blue name parents.
Linus Torvalds? Maybe I’m the wrong age but that was one of the bigger names when I was starting my tech career
Edit: you’ve got luminaries like Stallman too, who didn’t have the rich family but did get the university they worked at to cover their living expenses. An uncomfortable amount of leaders in the Free Software and Open Source communities openly advocate for people to give away their time and effort for free, while living on the largesse of others
Edit: you’ve got luminaries like Stallman too, who didn’t have the rich family but did get the university they worked at to cover their living expenses. An uncomfortable amount of leaders in the Free Software and Open Source communities openly advocate for people to give away their time and effort for free, while living on the largesse of others
This is some low level criticism. Just because some one has successful parents it takes anything away from their accomplishments? I mean, it's always nice to root for the underdogs, I do too, but this Zeitgeist has just become childish.
I wasn’t diminishing or taking away their accomplishment's, their background doesn’t change what they did or made.
What I was critiquing was the fact that a seemingly inordinate number of people who advocate that your work in software should be free for anyone else to take without payment, also happen to not ever need to consider how they put food on the table due to wealth they inherited or were given due to their celebrity status
What I was critiquing was the fact that a seemingly inordinate number of people who advocate that your work in software should be free for anyone else to take without payment, also happen to not ever need to consider how they put food on the table due to wealth they inherited or were given due to their celebrity status
[deleted]
It has nearly nothing to do with the tech industry or counterculture and everything to do with being shit at urban planning and selling land to speculators on the cheap, so you end up with nowhere for the sprawl to go, and the land owner voting block that sabotages any attempt at building high density settlements.
> Silicon Valley used to be countercultural, an alternative to Corporate America.
Turns out this is bullshit.
It's fine I bought into it too. But it's a pretty unbroken path from today back through the history of business in Silicon Valley. It's always been a smokescreen.
I recommend this book, it's highly illuminating and specific: https://www.amazon.com/Palo-Alto-History-California-Capitali...
Turns out this is bullshit.
It's fine I bought into it too. But it's a pretty unbroken path from today back through the history of business in Silicon Valley. It's always been a smokescreen.
I recommend this book, it's highly illuminating and specific: https://www.amazon.com/Palo-Alto-History-California-Capitali...
You need to watch "All Watched over by Machines of Loving Grace" by Adam Curtis which outlines Silicon Valley's long Libertarian roots. Making money and greed has been deeply embedded from the start.
> "All Watched over by Machines of Loving Grace"
This reminds me of the tycoon's thunderously semi-religious speech from The Network [0], which has aged pretty well for a movie 50 years old.
> The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that... perfect world... in which there's no war or famine, oppression or brutality. One vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock. All necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35DSdw7dHjs&t=0m43s
This reminds me of the tycoon's thunderously semi-religious speech from The Network [0], which has aged pretty well for a movie 50 years old.
> The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that... perfect world... in which there's no war or famine, oppression or brutality. One vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock. All necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35DSdw7dHjs&t=0m43s
Absolutely love Adam Curtis. I was first exposed to AWOBMOLG in the basement of the Palais de Tokyo as an idealistic undergrad, and bristled at his claims. Since then it has become one of my favorite pieces of filmmaking. Great soundtrack too.
Is it based on the poem or just named after it? I don’t remember anything particularly libertarian about the poem.
It is just named after the poem, as a reference to the SV ideology of stepping back and letting the machines and the networks decide our future.
If you let money drive, you end up where money wants to go.
I like this framing.
Anyone care to suggest what money "wants" or where it wants to go?
I know it's a flawed question, because money is in many ways inert, but we have similar caveats around genes and evolution. Non-sentient things can still create persistent structures that we can label with our human values. Or something :)
Anyone care to suggest what money "wants" or where it wants to go?
I know it's a flawed question, because money is in many ways inert, but we have similar caveats around genes and evolution. Non-sentient things can still create persistent structures that we can label with our human values. Or something :)
I think money is simply like mass: it has some kind of gravitational force, so people are drawn to it (the more money the stronger the pull), and it attracts itself (money tends to accumulate like a black hole), if left unchecked.
The only way to interfere with it is by using other unrelated forces, like kindness, just like we can move masses around with electromagnetism.
The only way to interfere with it is by using other unrelated forces, like kindness, just like we can move masses around with electromagnetism.
Its ancestors wanted to feed the Roman army, and to ensure that the recently conquered stayed conquered next year. I don't think it's much different today: provide legitimacy to cases where those with power want to coerce those without.
The modern wrinkle is that our effects on the world are more significant. This design has side effects (re: the climate, to name just one). These are side effects which we may not be able to tolerate forever. I think that money, being a status-quo preserver, "wants" us to ignore them for as long as possible, but since they're cumulative, that's going to be tougher sell as time goes on.
Also, It's an information technology. As the makers of such things I think it's up to us to figure out what the next version should look like.
The modern wrinkle is that our effects on the world are more significant. This design has side effects (re: the climate, to name just one). These are side effects which we may not be able to tolerate forever. I think that money, being a status-quo preserver, "wants" us to ignore them for as long as possible, but since they're cumulative, that's going to be tougher sell as time goes on.
Also, It's an information technology. As the makers of such things I think it's up to us to figure out what the next version should look like.
Generally speaking, money wants to go places that fulfill peoples desires, much like a ball wants to roll down hill.
People want food, housing, entertainment, and many more things so there is money to be made providing them.
Sometimes people do a bad job at picking what they want.
Sometimes people dont like what other people want, and when other people get it.
People want food, housing, entertainment, and many more things so there is money to be made providing them.
Sometimes people do a bad job at picking what they want.
Sometimes people dont like what other people want, and when other people get it.
Money wants to go to where more money is, and accumulate in great pools that can pull in more and more money. Money seeks to erode barriers that would prevent this, so that the money pool can accumulate faster and faster. This force can overcome morals that are barriers to the process of money accumulation.
Money tends to want more money. Thus, it's extremely amoral so we shouldn't be shocked when it does things people consider bad.
"Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome."
--Charlie Munger
--Charlie Munger
In terms of numbers, there aren’t that many SV companies that exploit kids via insecurities and screen addiction. But I don’t doubt their impact.
The ones that do are so huge that the number of companies doesn't matter. Facebook market cap is 1.5 Trillion and has $150bn of revenue every year. That's more than many countries around the world. (and I am comparing revenues to GDP).
“I don’t doubt the impact”
Sure, but you led with something that implied the opposite. Were I your editor, I'd've struck it.
I don’t think it’s misleading. SV isn’t the sum of Meta, YouTube, and TikTok (which isn’t even SV despite some roles here) - even if those companies impacts are outsized. The article explicits calls out things like AI; Anthropic and OpenAI are nowhere near like those others. And that’s just one category.
I would hope a YCombinator news site of all places would see that.
I would hope a YCombinator news site of all places would see that.
I am not sure what your subtext here is. Are you saying it doesnt matter as much because there are fewer SV companies?
My take is that maybe we shouldn't paint all of SV with the same brush. Not every SV company is Philip Morris.
But all of them would kill for Philip Morris levels of product-market fit.
You are right; there are still many good people and companies in Silicon Valley. Unfortunately the Philip Morrises of Silicon Valley have outsized influence since they control major social media platforms, Web infrastructure and standards, advertising networks, cloud computing platforms, and other essential tech infrastructure. Locally, they are also large employers in the Bay Area, and due to the housing crunch it is very difficult for non-“Philip Morris” workers, even in tech, to compete for housing (not every software engineer makes $200k+ in salary and gets RSU grants), which is pushing some of them out the Valley, helping make the Valley even more of a “Philip Morris” shop.
Right, only the ones that touch all of humanity are Philip Morris!
Maybe you shouldn't demonize all of SV, and it's the one working against your self interest?
I admit that's a large ask for a consumer, to keep track of a larger organizations abusing you.
I admit that's a large ask for a consumer, to keep track of a larger organizations abusing you.
I don't think the 'they' you refer to exist anymore. It isn't that tech workers got corrupted by power. There was a brief (20 year?) period where workers had more leverage than owners. Asset owners were forced to bend to workers, pay huge salaries and beg to invest in companies they didn't understand.
Now asset owners have the whole thing comfortably under their thumb, every large tech co has MBAs throughout and schools have been pumping out engineers for 20 years so workers have no leverage. It has become the same as every other large industry.
Now asset owners have the whole thing comfortably under their thumb, every large tech co has MBAs throughout and schools have been pumping out engineers for 20 years so workers have no leverage. It has become the same as every other large industry.
Tim Wu discussed this at length in The Master Switch back in 2010:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8201080-the-master-switc...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8201080-the-master-switc...
Also "The Curse of Bigness" is as relevant as that book.
https://www.amazon.com/Curse-Bigness-Antitrust-New-Gilded-eb...
hoodies are the new white collar
Money and power is clearly one hell of a drug.
Also a collective mindset - if most people one knows are doing exactly the same, morality lines tend to conveniently blur, it requires very strong personality to keep the inner compass untainted for decades.
And its a grey business so to say, you can see various justifications for it also here since many folks here work for them, its not some Zyklon-B factory. At the end, everybody under certain circumstances has a price, and kids tend to blur this even more for many.
And its a grey business so to say, you can see various justifications for it also here since many folks here work for them, its not some Zyklon-B factory. At the end, everybody under certain circumstances has a price, and kids tend to blur this even more for many.
This is one of the many reasons that tech wants to hire young.
> kids tend to blur this even more for many.
I think OP meant the opposite -- that when people have children in the Bay Area and want to support them, they'll make moral compromises to do so, given the cost.
The very young may not grasp what they are doing, and they may be easily "boiled as frogs", but I think they are more likely to believe that they are not making moral compromises.
I think OP meant the opposite -- that when people have children in the Bay Area and want to support them, they'll make moral compromises to do so, given the cost.
The very young may not grasp what they are doing, and they may be easily "boiled as frogs", but I think they are more likely to believe that they are not making moral compromises.
There is only one reason that tech hires young and that's the growth rate in the number of software engineers. The profession looks young simple because there are probably 10x as many now as there were 30 years ago, so naturally there will be a whole lot less 50 year olds than 20 year olds.
This is not new: read articles of transcripts of speeches from 10+ years ago by Thiel or pg that lionize young, inexperienced founders and the benefits of working at startups pitched to the youth.
What really gets me, is very young software engineers (not managers or marketers), that emulate the values and behaviors of tech bro billionaires.
It’s not surprising, but it is kind of disappointing.
When I was young, I was convinced that all the bad in the world, was the fault of evil, greedy old men. If young folks ran things, we’d be empathetic, kind, ethical, and positive.
As SV is basically completely run by young folks, of various races, genders, and backgrounds , I have to admit that it is actually worse, than the evil old men.
It’s not surprising, but it is kind of disappointing.
When I was young, I was convinced that all the bad in the world, was the fault of evil, greedy old men. If young folks ran things, we’d be empathetic, kind, ethical, and positive.
As SV is basically completely run by young folks, of various races, genders, and backgrounds , I have to admit that it is actually worse, than the evil old men.
[deleted]
"You either die a hero or you live long enough to become the villain"
loeber(3)
startupsfail(1)
Maybe because when the government looks to regulate them, that is why the lobbying effort takes up?
Nothing ever has changed
Nothing ever has changed
The excellent financial podcaster/youtuber Patrick Boyle has a related entry, "Crypto Has Bought The 2024 Election": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpZvC_5leDY
An unprecedented peek-behind-the-covers at the inside of mainstream media brain.
Man with wide eyes and stock photos and nordvpn sponsorship on set with full makeup and steampunk costume rambles through various headlines, not forgetting to show you how to (mis)interpret facts, and how to manifest life as a rabid political fanatic, ready to ruin any dialog you come across with barking and screeching and red eyes.
There is nothing in that video that even resembles thought or rationality, it is just classic mainstream media non-sequitur that adorns the regalia of knowledge and batters the viewer with meaningless "facts" and "figures" until they are in a state of ready-to-be-filled aporia.
Man with wide eyes and stock photos and nordvpn sponsorship on set with full makeup and steampunk costume rambles through various headlines, not forgetting to show you how to (mis)interpret facts, and how to manifest life as a rabid political fanatic, ready to ruin any dialog you come across with barking and screeching and red eyes.
There is nothing in that video that even resembles thought or rationality, it is just classic mainstream media non-sequitur that adorns the regalia of knowledge and batters the viewer with meaningless "facts" and "figures" until they are in a state of ready-to-be-filled aporia.
I guess I fell for it, then - I’m not particularly intelligent nor media-savvy, so perhaps that’s no surprise.
In your estimation, what’s an example of a fact that Boyle misinterprets in this video?
In your estimation, what’s an example of a fact that Boyle misinterprets in this video?
It's not about "intelligence" or about any particular factual misinterpretation, I'm sure there's some "source" that more-or-less backs each individual claim made in the video, the problem is, in broad strokes, the standard of evidence for each individual "fact", and the narrative that guides the viewer through the set of curated and disconnected facts to an implied conclusion, which is less like a conclusion and more like a sentiment: "The crypto industry is a bunch of rich scammers like FTX and Sam Bankman Fried that are trying to grease the wheels of power with all of their ill-gotten wealth to protect themselves and continue to rob dopes that are buying into this trash." It's easy to imagine a conjugate set of disconnected and non-sequitur facts that with the right presentation lead to precisely the opposite conclusion.
But, neither of those is thinking. I mean that, the problem is not that the ambiguity of the situation provides for two or more interpretations, which it seems to me that it does, but that this mode of investigation, which outwardly accounts for itself like "Each side go to your corner and gather as many facts as you can, then we'll gather in the middle and compare, whoever has the more and heavier facts shall be found truthful!", but is really more like, "Let's all divide ourselves in two, randomly, and amass as many facts as we can that back up our point-of-view, while dismissing any that support the other, and just for fun let's add in hating the other corner too, because it makes all of this more exciting."
If you hang your thinking on the results of some surveys, and one account of what happened in some particular historical event, plus some truistic phrase like "All's well that end's well" and a couple of well-timed stock photo gags to pull it all together, you will find yourself 1. impermeable to any ideas that don't fit in the point-of-view or framing of the question you already have and 2. completely and willfully uncurious about the world and questions you aren't already asking about the things you don't already have preconceived notions of.
But, neither of those is thinking. I mean that, the problem is not that the ambiguity of the situation provides for two or more interpretations, which it seems to me that it does, but that this mode of investigation, which outwardly accounts for itself like "Each side go to your corner and gather as many facts as you can, then we'll gather in the middle and compare, whoever has the more and heavier facts shall be found truthful!", but is really more like, "Let's all divide ourselves in two, randomly, and amass as many facts as we can that back up our point-of-view, while dismissing any that support the other, and just for fun let's add in hating the other corner too, because it makes all of this more exciting."
If you hang your thinking on the results of some surveys, and one account of what happened in some particular historical event, plus some truistic phrase like "All's well that end's well" and a couple of well-timed stock photo gags to pull it all together, you will find yourself 1. impermeable to any ideas that don't fit in the point-of-view or framing of the question you already have and 2. completely and willfully uncurious about the world and questions you aren't already asking about the things you don't already have preconceived notions of.
Regular subscribers to Patrick Boyle know that his channel is not really about finance - and certainly not about crypto. Most of the time, the channel is meant to be a place to talk about rap music. It's very subtle.
Steampunk costume? Are you watching the same video?
Curious if there is a reference for his 86% win rate from 42 primaries for the crypro Super Pacs that another poster also mentioned?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41720799
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41720799
+1 for Patrick Boyle's channel - very informative and his dry humor is fun too
Any time the message is "We should do X because if we don't, the bogeyman will do it," it should be a red flag. Seems to be one of the common themes in the article.
It's always admitting that the thing you want to do is bad, but wanting to do it anyways. And more often than not, it relies on a mischaracterization of the supposed bogeyman: "the democrats eat babies and wouldn't hesitate to do X, so that justifies us sinking lower unless we want baby eaters to win."
Or maybe it's just inevitable that anything structurally resembling a race to the bottom ends up with everybody on the bottom.
It's always admitting that the thing you want to do is bad, but wanting to do it anyways. And more often than not, it relies on a mischaracterization of the supposed bogeyman: "the democrats eat babies and wouldn't hesitate to do X, so that justifies us sinking lower unless we want baby eaters to win."
Or maybe it's just inevitable that anything structurally resembling a race to the bottom ends up with everybody on the bottom.
It should definitely be a red flag and warrant deeper inspection, but that doesn't mean it's always wrong. The dems do eat babies, obviously ;)
Dirty brainwashing ad tricks sneak into Congress, no surprise: “If you are pro-crypto, we will help you, and if you are anti we will tear you apart.”
startupsfail(1)
Semi on-topic: Why should the federal government even entertain a "strongly" pro-cryptocurrency agenda, when the real goal of cryptocurrencies is to displace/reduce the power of the U.S. dollar, from which the federal government (and the American people) derive many, many benefits?
That’s not the real goal of cryptocurrencies.
It started off that way—remember people buying pizzas and domain names with bitcoin? That is the sort of thing that people do with dollars.
But it became quickly apparent that cryptocurrencies suck as currency because they are so strongly deflationary. However, that makes them work great as commodity financial instruments.
So viewing crypto as a financial market (not a currency), it benefits the U.S. to have as much of the market transacting within the jurisdiction as possible. Then you get the tax benefits, and ancillary benefits (e.g. rich crypto owners buying things).
It started off that way—remember people buying pizzas and domain names with bitcoin? That is the sort of thing that people do with dollars.
But it became quickly apparent that cryptocurrencies suck as currency because they are so strongly deflationary. However, that makes them work great as commodity financial instruments.
So viewing crypto as a financial market (not a currency), it benefits the U.S. to have as much of the market transacting within the jurisdiction as possible. Then you get the tax benefits, and ancillary benefits (e.g. rich crypto owners buying things).
Because blockchains can be a great weapon against dictatorships who cannot allow free expression.
US has enough cultural and institutional flexibility to accommodate dissent. First amendment protects almost any speech against the government, including insulting the president.
Compare that against China, who simply cannot tolerate citizens having any freedom of expression beyond what the party allows. See "tanks of tiananmen" smart contract[1] or "winnie the pooh" NFTs [2] - the only thing CCP can do at that point is to ban the entire blockchain ecosystem. But if blockchains are a big success in the rest of the world, CCP also has to cater to it just to keep pace with the West's tech progress.
[1] https://bscscan.com/token/0xb79c9c73e8c7b4be7244e697e6bdb9f5...
[2] https://opensea.io/collection/poohsnft
US has enough cultural and institutional flexibility to accommodate dissent. First amendment protects almost any speech against the government, including insulting the president.
Compare that against China, who simply cannot tolerate citizens having any freedom of expression beyond what the party allows. See "tanks of tiananmen" smart contract[1] or "winnie the pooh" NFTs [2] - the only thing CCP can do at that point is to ban the entire blockchain ecosystem. But if blockchains are a big success in the rest of the world, CCP also has to cater to it just to keep pace with the West's tech progress.
[1] https://bscscan.com/token/0xb79c9c73e8c7b4be7244e697e6bdb9f5...
[2] https://opensea.io/collection/poohsnft
[deleted]
Because you need to be/stay elected in order to enforce policy.
As an aside, one could easily replace 'crypto-currency' with 'fascism' in your comment to accurately describe why Republicans are following a similar tact in spite of the benefits of a democracy
As an aside, one could easily replace 'crypto-currency' with 'fascism' in your comment to accurately describe why Republicans are following a similar tact in spite of the benefits of a democracy
Crypto people care about the price. They know it cannot be a mainstream currency because of how wasfeful, slow or insecure it is (pick 1+ depending on the coin) so really BTC/USD number goes up makes us richer is the game. Also encouraging degen gambling is the game. As is Ponzi. All of which makes insiders money.
The best coup would be Bitcoin as a gold that backs USD. This would force the price up well above a million. It might also make the world dark. $1 per kwh. $10 per kwh and so on.
Other coups would be lebanon style power interruptions while energy is diverted to mining with various subsidies.
The best coup would be Bitcoin as a gold that backs USD. This would force the price up well above a million. It might also make the world dark. $1 per kwh. $10 per kwh and so on.
Other coups would be lebanon style power interruptions while energy is diverted to mining with various subsidies.
“New”
They’ve been this way for decades. The whole “don’t be evil” facade slipped away once the money started flowing
They’ve been this way for decades. The whole “don’t be evil” facade slipped away once the money started flowing
Katie Porter is a progressive House newcomer who punched above her weight in earned media with a series of populist House floor stunts that got her a lot of attention in Northern Virginia and Boston, but probably didn't do as much as you'd think to raise her profile in the suburban communities in California that turn out in primary races.
Schiff is an undefeated 12-term House Democratic mainstay with a reputation as one of the savvier players in the party.
Cryptocurrency lobbyists didn't tank Porter's primary campaign. Schiff beat her 2:1, as observers expected. Just compare the endorsements. California has a jungle primary, so you can end up with two Democratic candidates after a primary, but Garvey beat her 2:1 as well, and you don't swing from a Republican MLB first baseman to Katie Porter based on an independent ad campaign.
Schiff is an undefeated 12-term House Democratic mainstay with a reputation as one of the savvier players in the party.
Cryptocurrency lobbyists didn't tank Porter's primary campaign. Schiff beat her 2:1, as observers expected. Just compare the endorsements. California has a jungle primary, so you can end up with two Democratic candidates after a primary, but Garvey beat her 2:1 as well, and you don't swing from a Republican MLB first baseman to Katie Porter based on an independent ad campaign.
Makes sense. Lobbyists for legacy competitors tried to screw them so they picked up the game. In Canada and Australia they tried to screw them on the news / search linking debacle. The problem is that when you come at the king, you best not miss.
What a politician wants most is to win reelection. This explains everything
One of Microsoft's biggest lessons out of their anit monopoly trial was that they were not political enough.
Before the trial Bill Gates though spending money on lobbying was a waste and its a widely held belief that their anti trust trial wouldn't have happened if they had spent on lobbiest like healthcare, finance, and anything military do.
Post 2000, silicon valley learned this lesson and became one of the biggest lobbyers of the government. To the point where they eclipsed the oil and farm lobbies.
Before the trial Bill Gates though spending money on lobbying was a waste and its a widely held belief that their anti trust trial wouldn't have happened if they had spent on lobbiest like healthcare, finance, and anything military do.
Post 2000, silicon valley learned this lesson and became one of the biggest lobbyers of the government. To the point where they eclipsed the oil and farm lobbies.
> Porter, who had initially polled well, lost decisively in the primary, coming in third, with just fifteen per cent of the vote.
She was running against Adam Schiff, who had much broader name recognition. It also didn't help that she's overweight and "Porker" became her nasty nickname.
This is a shoddy piece of reporting. Tech lobbying didn't start with Chris Lehane, Uber, Lyft, or crypto. Anytime government is capable of helping or hurting an industry, they form a lobbying group. The more money involved, the bigger the lobbying effort.
She was running against Adam Schiff, who had much broader name recognition. It also didn't help that she's overweight and "Porker" became her nasty nickname.
This is a shoddy piece of reporting. Tech lobbying didn't start with Chris Lehane, Uber, Lyft, or crypto. Anytime government is capable of helping or hurting an industry, they form a lobbying group. The more money involved, the bigger the lobbying effort.
It didn't help that the Schiff campaign (backed by the CA democratic party) donated to the Garvey campaign to force her out of the primary. Seems weird to not mention this.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-03-06/californ...
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-03-06/californ...
[deleted]
I wouldn't say "new". This has been a thing for decades. While the companies who are the top spenders may have changed, Silicon Valley tech as a whole has been pretty aggressively represented for some time.
Microsoft intensified its lobbying efforts when it faced scrutiny for bundling IE with Windows. Similarly, Facebook, Google, Apple, and others have increased their lobbying over the years.
As you pointed out, this is nothing new. When companies or entire industries feel threatened, they ramp up lobbying – even Huawei hired Tony Podesta to advocate for them.
Hillary Clinton's call to repeal Section 230 for stricter social media regulation will likely prompt tech companies to boost their lobbying efforts.
Sooner or later, companies in emerging industries will start lobbying to protect their interests or advance their agendas.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/23/huawei-hires-tony-p...
As you pointed out, this is nothing new. When companies or entire industries feel threatened, they ramp up lobbying – even Huawei hired Tony Podesta to advocate for them.
Hillary Clinton's call to repeal Section 230 for stricter social media regulation will likely prompt tech companies to boost their lobbying efforts.
Sooner or later, companies in emerging industries will start lobbying to protect their interests or advance their agendas.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/23/huawei-hires-tony-p...
My thoughts exactly. This article calls out crypto but tech lobbying has a much longer history with Amazon, Google, and Meta. I view crypto as an extension of the financial services industry at this point (look at the boards and execs of these companies; they are more finance than tech), which obviously is the king of financing campaigns.
And the corporation that owns the The New Yorker (Condé Nast) is a notorious lobbyist in both the US and EU around AI Regulations and AdTech.
Goes to show that most political op-eds are just entertainment.
Goes to show that most political op-eds are just entertainment.
A bit more than a decade.
A while ago software companies where taking every kind of abuse from the US government, coming from well represented entertainment, finance, and all kinds of other industries. This suddenly stopped when they started to lobby.
A while ago software companies where taking every kind of abuse from the US government, coming from well represented entertainment, finance, and all kinds of other industries. This suddenly stopped when they started to lobby.
Yep! For example, the EFF was notably supported by Google back when Google was taking on Microsoft, the ITIF has been active for decades, and the Obama admin was notorious for being overrepresented by Google leadership.
Ain't no point adding morality to lobbying - it's just what it is.
Ain't no point adding morality to lobbying - it's just what it is.
The Andreessen and Horowitz quotes in this are particularly hilarious and pathetic. The desperate attempts at linking their greed to the fate of the country itself is so nakedly self-serving (as are many of the quotes from these lobbyists and other VCs) that they should make them a laughing stock.
The Citizens United decision will be a cancer in American politics and a boon for the ultra-wealthy for generations.
The Citizens United decision will be a cancer in American politics and a boon for the ultra-wealthy for generations.
Citizens United was the correct decision. The alternative is our government deciding who gets to engage in politics. Without Citizens United politics would be even more restricted to a much smaller set of even wealthier people and established politicians who have access to the governemnt approved outlets of political speech.
Indeed. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, which in clear language protects free speech for corporations. That includes the right to engage in political advocacy, which is what Citizens United v. FEC was about.
A lot of people have a, let's say filtered understanding of the decision, which has become a sort of shibboleth rather than a direct reference to the Supreme Court's ruling.
I encourage reading up on the ruling itself, at least the Wikipedia summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
Or should you prefer primary sources (as ideally you should) just read the ruling https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/
The canonical source, just for completeness. Justia has the same text https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
A lot of people have a, let's say filtered understanding of the decision, which has become a sort of shibboleth rather than a direct reference to the Supreme Court's ruling.
I encourage reading up on the ruling itself, at least the Wikipedia summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
Or should you prefer primary sources (as ideally you should) just read the ruling https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/
The canonical source, just for completeness. Justia has the same text https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
This is a reasonable sounding hypothesis that has been shown to be completely false.
False dichotomy. Prior to CU, individuals could contribute to any candidate of their choosing (up to an annual contribution limit). Companies are compased of individuals. CU was twisted logic to reach a preconceived, corrupt outcome.
You are misunderstanding what the Citizens United vs. FEC determined. Candidate contributions are still limited, even after CU. What's not limited is independent expenditures.
I can understand how the "up to an annual contribution limit" part of my comment could be confusing. I added that in an attempt to not be misleading / to circumvent spurious disagreement. I've moved it inside of parenthesis to de-emphasise it.
If you read my comment as a response to the parent, I believe it will make more sense.
---
CU opened the floodgates of anonymous, unlimited political contributions to "independent", but not really independent, organizations which can campaign on behalf of candidates.
The goal was/is to replace our democratic republic with an oligarchy. And we're now in the end game.
If you read my comment as a response to the parent, I believe it will make more sense.
---
CU opened the floodgates of anonymous, unlimited political contributions to "independent", but not really independent, organizations which can campaign on behalf of candidates.
The goal was/is to replace our democratic republic with an oligarchy. And we're now in the end game.
> which can campaign on behalf of candidates.
Wrong, if the candidates are directing or otherwise leading ostensibly-independent donations this is illegal. Independent donations are exactly that: independent of a candidate's campaign. If they're carried out on behalf of a candidate, they're not independent donations.
You can put up billboards saying, "X candidate's record is the best on climate change, tax policy, etc.". Your spending in this manner is not subject to limits. If the candidate calls you up and says "It'd be really good if you put up billboards saying X, Y, and Z" then that's breaking election laws.
Citizens United is not even remotely close to replacing our republic with an oligarchy. You can't buy elections, no matter how much people try to say so. Clintion received about twice as many donations as Trump in 2016, but still lost the election.
Wrong, if the candidates are directing or otherwise leading ostensibly-independent donations this is illegal. Independent donations are exactly that: independent of a candidate's campaign. If they're carried out on behalf of a candidate, they're not independent donations.
You can put up billboards saying, "X candidate's record is the best on climate change, tax policy, etc.". Your spending in this manner is not subject to limits. If the candidate calls you up and says "It'd be really good if you put up billboards saying X, Y, and Z" then that's breaking election laws.
Citizens United is not even remotely close to replacing our republic with an oligarchy. You can't buy elections, no matter how much people try to say so. Clintion received about twice as many donations as Trump in 2016, but still lost the election.
It all assumes the candidate is the queen bee. They are now the worker bee. The superpac sets the rules, the candidate follow to get elected. That is the example in thw article, well actually more meta: it was a flex by crypto to show them they are a new mafia. They get many for the price of one.
The correct decision is to set a limit on campaigning, and fund it with tax dollars, no outside spending.
Donations to political campaigns are still limited. Even after Citizens United.
What's not limited is independent expenditures. You can, for example, organize rallies or put up billboards advocating more serious efforts to combat climate change without limit.
What's not limited is independent expenditures. You can, for example, organize rallies or put up billboards advocating more serious efforts to combat climate change without limit.
[deleted]
So we should let the government choose who gets campaign funding? Sounds like an established politician's wet dream.
Oh no! Established politicians! They know how the government works, and could possibly be effective. We can't let them get reelected!
I joke, but the current system is so much more vastly corrupt than this imagined scenario where small potatoes money gets handed out equally to all candidates in a race, that I just can't really imagine what your actual nightmare scenario might be.
I joke, but the current system is so much more vastly corrupt than this imagined scenario where small potatoes money gets handed out equally to all candidates in a race, that I just can't really imagine what your actual nightmare scenario might be.
The nightmare scenario is that the money is not handed out equally to all candidates.
If corrupt incumbent politicians have complete control of the finances of an election, how could they be held accountable? Anyone wanting to run against them on this issue would simply be denied the money to do so.
If corrupt incumbent politicians have complete control of the finances of an election, how could they be held accountable? Anyone wanting to run against them on this issue would simply be denied the money to do so.
>If corrupt incumbent politicians have complete control of the finances of an election, how could they be held accountable?
The exact same way any relief is sought against the government: the court system.
The exact same way any relief is sought against the government: the court system.
Ok, and who appoints the judges? And who is responsible for enforcing court decisions?
The government is not the conspiracy your post requires it to be.
I agree that our current government is not.
But what you are proposing is a different government, one in which leaders could operate without the primary accountability that they face now: that anyone can organize a campaign against them.
But what you are proposing is a different government, one in which leaders could operate without the primary accountability that they face now: that anyone can organize a campaign against them.
The barriers you cite already exist. There are plenty of rules ablout what must do to get on the ballot, yet somehow new politicians still get into politics.
Many modern, developed democracies do exactly that, and are quite more democratic than 2 parties running the state. As well as not making elections a show might help democracy instead of the best showman.
I will be waiting for the American exceptionalism arguments on why a thing that well functioning democracies/countries do wouldn't work in the USA.
I will be waiting for the American exceptionalism arguments on why a thing that well functioning democracies/countries do wouldn't work in the USA.
Oh god not gun control! /s
Works in Europe and established politicians get voted out regularly.
You can also establish campaign spending limits without it being funded by taxes. In other words anyone can raise money for their campaign but only up to X amount (and no PACs).
You can also establish campaign spending limits without it being funded by taxes. In other words anyone can raise money for their campaign but only up to X amount (and no PACs).
Assuming that what you say is the outcome of a proposal like mine (which, btw, it isn't): I would rather have the government (which is beholden to the constitution) than the wealthy (who aren't beholden to the constitution) be the gatekeeper.
In fact, this money would be available to anyone who met whatever threshold was legally enshrined, a far better alternative than having to kiss the ring of an oligarch, as you propose.
In fact, this money would be available to anyone who met whatever threshold was legally enshrined, a far better alternative than having to kiss the ring of an oligarch, as you propose.
The government should set sensible limits on campaign contributions that avoid a system of legalised bribery, aka. SuperPACs, such that actual people get to choose their representatives, not a handful of ultra-rich with the means to steer politics.
The only candidate in American politics that lives up to your idealised, independent politician of the people, is Bernie Sanders. And guess what? He strongly opposes billionaires buying themselves a government.
The only candidate in American politics that lives up to your idealised, independent politician of the people, is Bernie Sanders. And guess what? He strongly opposes billionaires buying themselves a government.
That might have been the “hopeful” argument for Citizens United but the the reality has been the opposite. There is so much more money going into politics by large companies and the wealthy than ever before. It’s a poison on democracy and one of the absolute worst SC decisions ever.
citizens united = sell the election to the highest bidder. no need to put lipstick on a pig
> Without Citizens United politics would be even more restricted to a much smaller set of even wealthier people
Really? Because there are many countries with far stricter regulations on campaign financing than the US had pre-Citizens United, that also have much more working class representation in their politics than the US.[0]
[0]https://www.noamlupu.com/Carnes_Lupu_ARPS.pdf
Really? Because there are many countries with far stricter regulations on campaign financing than the US had pre-Citizens United, that also have much more working class representation in their politics than the US.[0]
[0]https://www.noamlupu.com/Carnes_Lupu_ARPS.pdf
What specifically in Citizens United is bad? Are there any positive outcomes from CU?
For one thing, it equates money with speech, which destabilizes our democracy by giving more power to those who have money. Obviously, money does that in many ways outside of the electoral process, but one would imagine that any serious democracy would want to keep its democratic processes maximally equitable.
I hear you , but that doesn't seem to pass the smell test.
The vast majority (97% ?) of voters are low-information voters. 1 such vote is equal to 1 high information vote (3% ?), those who research, read bills, etc.
So the process is already not maximally equitable - in fact, the system severely punishes high information voters via opportunity cost.
At that point dollars positively affect your outcome because with paid mediums , low information voters can now get more information, despite being unwilling to inform themselves via hard work. So that's a benefit. That information flow is subject to competition, so the best ideas (and information) will win out. That's another plus. Money competes for eyeballs, and your dollars are just as good as mine. If you have more $$, i can pool my friends and beat you. There's nothing more equitable than that we have discovered so far.
Now, enter someone with a ton of money, Musk. You could argue that he would tilt the game. But we then observe the opposite: Billionaires are also subject to the law of diminishing returns. 'Donations' will only buy so much favor, and then they become a losing proposition. So, do you want a billionaire burning his cash in the political process? The answer is absolutely: it signals a level of credibility and conviction, when business opportunity is already a loser.
So in short, you want people to risk all their chips in something they believe, instead of limiting their bets and just get rich off the house, playing the long game .
Perhaps we start from the other side of the table. Maybe money is not the problem. Perhaps it is the power concentrated in too few individuals ? How about cutting off power from those that are selling favors to the highest bidders ?
The vast majority (97% ?) of voters are low-information voters. 1 such vote is equal to 1 high information vote (3% ?), those who research, read bills, etc.
So the process is already not maximally equitable - in fact, the system severely punishes high information voters via opportunity cost.
At that point dollars positively affect your outcome because with paid mediums , low information voters can now get more information, despite being unwilling to inform themselves via hard work. So that's a benefit. That information flow is subject to competition, so the best ideas (and information) will win out. That's another plus. Money competes for eyeballs, and your dollars are just as good as mine. If you have more $$, i can pool my friends and beat you. There's nothing more equitable than that we have discovered so far.
Now, enter someone with a ton of money, Musk. You could argue that he would tilt the game. But we then observe the opposite: Billionaires are also subject to the law of diminishing returns. 'Donations' will only buy so much favor, and then they become a losing proposition. So, do you want a billionaire burning his cash in the political process? The answer is absolutely: it signals a level of credibility and conviction, when business opportunity is already a loser.
So in short, you want people to risk all their chips in something they believe, instead of limiting their bets and just get rich off the house, playing the long game .
Perhaps we start from the other side of the table. Maybe money is not the problem. Perhaps it is the power concentrated in too few individuals ? How about cutting off power from those that are selling favors to the highest bidders ?
The massive influx of money has empirically had a tendency to turn a substantial portion of your "high information votes" into "high _dis_information votes"
> At that point dollars positively affect your outcome because with paid mediums , low information voters can now get more information, despite being unwilling to inform themselves via hard work. So that's a benefit. That information flow is subject to competition, so the best ideas (and information) will win out.
I don't believe in this rosy view of the "marketplace of ideas", fear wins out, populism wins out, not the best ideas. The best ideas have nuance, they demand to be understood in context, they aren't catchphrases nor explore scapegoats for societal problems. All of that demands a high-information voter to parse through and judge what's the "best idea" within their context, environment, community, etc.
No, I do not believe that allowing ideas to fight it out inevitably leads to the best ideas raising to the top, people don't vote intellectually, they vote emotionally and the person who tries to fight strong emotions (such as fear) with ideas will lose out.
I don't believe in this rosy view of the "marketplace of ideas", fear wins out, populism wins out, not the best ideas. The best ideas have nuance, they demand to be understood in context, they aren't catchphrases nor explore scapegoats for societal problems. All of that demands a high-information voter to parse through and judge what's the "best idea" within their context, environment, community, etc.
No, I do not believe that allowing ideas to fight it out inevitably leads to the best ideas raising to the top, people don't vote intellectually, they vote emotionally and the person who tries to fight strong emotions (such as fear) with ideas will lose out.
Is a voter more like a VC: invest in the person not the idea (aka policy). Although the policies and how they are communicated are of course part of how you judge. I think everyone knows election promises are just promises.
A superpac has no bidders. It influences voters.
To even get power you now need to nod to crypto, nod to a certain middle eastern country and so on. Eventually politicians will be entirely impotent suits. Look at the current "choice" the electorate has.
To even get power you now need to nod to crypto, nod to a certain middle eastern country and so on. Eventually politicians will be entirely impotent suits. Look at the current "choice" the electorate has.
American democracy does not give special preference to information content of a voter, nor should it. Did you skip the entire Jim Crow era of history where the racially-presumed information content of a particular voter was used to disenfranchise those voters, even spuriously?
Our constitution does not begin, "We, the highly-informed people..."
Anything else, and you are no longer talking democracy.
Our constitution does not begin, "We, the highly-informed people..."
Anything else, and you are no longer talking democracy.
Our constitution established a republic, not a democracy. The drafters famously despised democracy. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6371
Yawn-inducing attempt at sleight of hand. Despite being a republic, we nevertheless select our representatives democratically. I vote directly on state-level constitutional amendments.
>That information flow is subject to competition, so the best ideas (and information) will win out.
Did you miss all of COVID era on social media?
Did you miss all of COVID era on social media?
For the best ideas to win, they must subject themselves to open conflict.
I didn't make a claim on how long conflict would last, but money is not infinite.
Noise is part of the system, and the system is not perfect, but that's a reflection of our imperfections, vs anything wrong with the final outcome.
I didn't make a claim on how long conflict would last, but money is not infinite.
Noise is part of the system, and the system is not perfect, but that's a reflection of our imperfections, vs anything wrong with the final outcome.
Yes, well we are discussing elections which very definitely have time frames. We can't wait for Edward Gibbons to come along 2 millennia later and tell us that some bullshit idea's poisoning of this particular election is going to wreck democracy.
Add to that the fact that bullshit is cheaper to produce than truth. Sprinkle in the notion also that bullshit is likely more profitable too. Consider what might happen if the bullshitters control orders of magnitude more money in the first place, and then filter through Brandolini's Law:
Add to that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
Democracy is too sacred to be left to the loudest.
Add to that the fact that bullshit is cheaper to produce than truth. Sprinkle in the notion also that bullshit is likely more profitable too. Consider what might happen if the bullshitters control orders of magnitude more money in the first place, and then filter through Brandolini's Law:
Add to that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
Democracy is too sacred to be left to the loudest.
[deleted]
Innocent question: what other major lobbying monsters are there in the US?
Something that surprised me recently was learning that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a private organization. I assumed it was some office funded by the government in a town, that worked with local businesses—or something along those lines. But no, they're a lobbying group, and they are the biggest lobbying group in the country. I'm not saying they are a monster (I clearly don't know anything about them) but at that size, how could you not be?
https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders
https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders
Id posit that they are simply from giving themselves that name and not disabusing anyone of the notion.
They like to get puff pieces in the news with their analysis on legislation and most people have the same misconception as a result
They like to get puff pieces in the news with their analysis on legislation and most people have the same misconception as a result
Car dealers. Also the biggest financiers of the Republican party.
See also, MLMs and the supplement industry. They're contributing for the legal right to screw average people out of their money.
The trifecta. If we regulated the supplement industry, ended MLMs and removed the requirement of car companies of having to use dealerships the country would be at a much better place.
A lot of the action has moved upstream now that Citizens United is the law (January 21, 2010: "this decision allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns"). Ideally from the corp. perspective you don't wait until a crisis point. You spend early and shape the narrative to prevent a crisis from ever happening. The Koch brothers created a network of donors who operate on this strategic plane more than the tactical "this specific regulation has to be changed" level. See Mayer's "Dark Money" for a comprehensive history.
Citizens United has got to be one of the worst and most anti-democracy rulings of the Supreme Court ever.
You can view it sliced various ways here:
https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying
https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying
Oil/energy, real estate pros, health insurance, ...
Healthcare
Boeing
[deleted]
>The Valley’s enthusiasm for Biden, however, was short-lived. The President quickly appointed three prominent tech skeptics—Gary Gensler, Lina Khan, and Jonathan Kanter—to oversee the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and the antitrust division of the Department of Justice, respectively. Soon the government was suing or investigating Google, Apple, Amazon, Meta, Tesla, and dozens of other companies.
Gensler, Warren and Khan have been exceptionally anti-tech. Nice of this article to notice there is a growing number of techies putting their money where their mouth is in response.
Gensler, Warren and Khan have been exceptionally anti-tech. Nice of this article to notice there is a growing number of techies putting their money where their mouth is in response.
Dismantle what SV has evolved into under venture capital.
When tech was scrappy and didnt have billions at stake, its products seemed to benefit humanity. Now it is (the most powerful?) part of the oppresive regime.
When tech was scrappy and didnt have billions at stake, its products seemed to benefit humanity. Now it is (the most powerful?) part of the oppresive regime.
At least the media and public are aware.
The oil industry: not so much: they are destroying the whole planet, and their lobbying is so much more secret and politically motivated
One has to wonder if we are truly aware. How much is AI ruining the environment via its constant demands for electricity and water? I'd expect more harms will come to light way down the line, as was true with big oil, tobacco, etc.
not so far down the line. Deepfakes have obvious harms and Sora/similar is obviously going to get abused (as well as used).
I question the very framework of judging harms at the tool instead of at the user in the first place. Under that twisted logic of attributing the morality of all users to the creator so much as sharpening an axe is a moral wrong.
that's a form of utilitarianism consequentialist ethics, which is fine, but is at odds with a deontological view of the world.
The media is also part of the corrupt system though. They also have an agenda, use clickbait, and focus on the topics that maximize conversions.
Not sure the public is aware. And media is complicit since they are happy to use dark patterns to drive readership.
If VCs disappear overnight most tech would not change ideologically. It hasn't changed too much ideologically for the past few decades.
Most were libertarian and continue to be libertarian.
The minor shift is from being left libertarian to more right libertarian, though that's mostly due to the political landscape where there isn't much room for contrarian leftists.
Most were libertarian and continue to be libertarian.
The minor shift is from being left libertarian to more right libertarian, though that's mostly due to the political landscape where there isn't much room for contrarian leftists.
> If VCs disappear overnight most tech would not change ideologically. It hasn't changed too much ideologically for the past few decades.
What has changed is that the proportion of people who wind up in tech primarily due to passion has drastically dropped as it became more prestigious. I'll paraphrase something I read elsewhere that rang true to me. In the 80s and 90s, amoral,greed-is-good, get-rich-by-any-means people got into banking and finance because it paid well. Now they go into tech.
What has changed is that the proportion of people who wind up in tech primarily due to passion has drastically dropped as it became more prestigious. I'll paraphrase something I read elsewhere that rang true to me. In the 80s and 90s, amoral,greed-is-good, get-rich-by-any-means people got into banking and finance because it paid well. Now they go into tech.
That still wouldn't change the political leanings much, which is my main point.
However the kind of moralization, where the industry has suddenly become amoral greedy monsters is imo wrong.
Tech has alway been ruthless. It's always been a cutthroat business. We even valorize that kind of character as the founder. That hasn't changed.
What has changed is the political opportunity. SV can now influence and leverage real political power. That political opportunity is why so many are switching away from being Left leaning Libertarians (with even re-distributive ideas like UBI), to more Right leaning libertarians.
And this is all because the incumbents on the Left aren't willing to make room for the new players in Tech. So path of least resistance is to move Right.
This realignment has happening for a decade plus now.
However the kind of moralization, where the industry has suddenly become amoral greedy monsters is imo wrong.
Tech has alway been ruthless. It's always been a cutthroat business. We even valorize that kind of character as the founder. That hasn't changed.
What has changed is the political opportunity. SV can now influence and leverage real political power. That political opportunity is why so many are switching away from being Left leaning Libertarians (with even re-distributive ideas like UBI), to more Right leaning libertarians.
And this is all because the incumbents on the Left aren't willing to make room for the new players in Tech. So path of least resistance is to move Right.
This realignment has happening for a decade plus now.
startupsfail(2)
If anyone needs to see what happen, read Marc Andreesen's cringy posts on X. The guy is a MAGA promoter and sounds more and more like an elderly "the country is going to hell in a handbasket" geriatric conservative every second.
Too many years in a bubble of undeserved wealth where people suck up to him constantly.
YC helped fund/promote Palantir, the dystopian surveillance company.
The Iraq war defense contractor boom pumped tons of money into pro-war entities and this is just the result of that capital finding its way into new ventures. Ideology comes along for the ride. It's the very definition of dystopian, government propaganda and big-lie-driven malinvesment and (in hindsight) massive financial fraud on taxpayers.
I'm personally shocked that PG touches any of this dirty money. When is enough enough?
Too many years in a bubble of undeserved wealth where people suck up to him constantly.
YC helped fund/promote Palantir, the dystopian surveillance company.
The Iraq war defense contractor boom pumped tons of money into pro-war entities and this is just the result of that capital finding its way into new ventures. Ideology comes along for the ride. It's the very definition of dystopian, government propaganda and big-lie-driven malinvesment and (in hindsight) massive financial fraud on taxpayers.
I'm personally shocked that PG touches any of this dirty money. When is enough enough?
YC does fund defense companies, esp tech innovative ones, a posture change they made due to the situation in Taiwan and Ukraine [1]
But they didn’t fund Palantir or Anduril or any of the companies that blew up during the Border Panics of 2016-2020.
Unless you’re playing guilty by association games in which case ..carry on.
[1]: https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/ares-industries
But they didn’t fund Palantir or Anduril or any of the companies that blew up during the Border Panics of 2016-2020.
Unless you’re playing guilty by association games in which case ..carry on.
[1]: https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/ares-industries
YC gave Palantir a massive platform at startup school to present the company and vision and recruit talent. Far more than the seed investment would have been worth.
With respect to the ares industries, YC buys into the neocon view strongly enough that it wants to help create the next wave of military tech. The only reason anyone perceives these "threats" and perceives the US to be "woefully unprepared" because of the marketing budget the defense industry has after profiting handsomely from the Iraq wars, etc.
The US is not in danger and does not need new and state of the art weapons systems. We are not losing in Ukraine because we don't have adequate weapons but because we are playing a very stupid and risky strategy. See the comments of Jeffrey Sachs on all of this.
With respect to the ares industries, YC buys into the neocon view strongly enough that it wants to help create the next wave of military tech. The only reason anyone perceives these "threats" and perceives the US to be "woefully unprepared" because of the marketing budget the defense industry has after profiting handsomely from the Iraq wars, etc.
The US is not in danger and does not need new and state of the art weapons systems. We are not losing in Ukraine because we don't have adequate weapons but because we are playing a very stupid and risky strategy. See the comments of Jeffrey Sachs on all of this.
Jeffrey Sachs is unfortunately a misinformation machine. His words sound convincing but lack truth. Unrelated to Ukraine, he is also very friendly with Chinese oppression and refused to acknowledge Uyghur torture.
Try reading this letter and see if you still believe him. Note the number of signatures at the bottom.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230806172854/https://news.berk...
Try reading this letter and see if you still believe him. Note the number of signatures at the bottom.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230806172854/https://news.berk...
I read the letter and it sounded like the "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive aggression. The claim is that Russia is by nature aggressive (based on a very long-term historical trend that does not include its current regime) and so aggressive action against Russia is warranted, regardless of the current government or any existing treaties.
The aggressive aspect of NATO is also minimized, which I think is naive.
I was in Ukraine in 2016 and saw the US fighter jets flying formations on Russia's doorstep. Calling that "defensive" is absurd. We now know that since the 1990s there has been a US goal to aggressively expand NATO mainly to suppress Russia.
The problem with this strategy is that it does not care at all about Ukrainian lives. As someone with family in Ukraine, I do not want my country (the US) wreaking havoc in the region. Thousands of Ukrainians are dying every single day right now, all because the US doesn't want to respect Russia's security zone. Mearshimer calls this the US nostalgia over the "uni-polar moment" when the US was briefly the only superpower.
Too much of the modern notions of American exceptionalism rely upon biases from that brief moment in history, to everyone's peril.
The aggressive aspect of NATO is also minimized, which I think is naive.
I was in Ukraine in 2016 and saw the US fighter jets flying formations on Russia's doorstep. Calling that "defensive" is absurd. We now know that since the 1990s there has been a US goal to aggressively expand NATO mainly to suppress Russia.
The problem with this strategy is that it does not care at all about Ukrainian lives. As someone with family in Ukraine, I do not want my country (the US) wreaking havoc in the region. Thousands of Ukrainians are dying every single day right now, all because the US doesn't want to respect Russia's security zone. Mearshimer calls this the US nostalgia over the "uni-polar moment" when the US was briefly the only superpower.
Too much of the modern notions of American exceptionalism rely upon biases from that brief moment in history, to everyone's peril.
Unfortunately this narrative is imperceptibly different from Russian propaganda (eg, leaving out that Russia regularly buzzes American airspace in Alaska). So if you want to make this case, you’ll have to find a narrative that works for Ukrainians (who overwhelmingly support the war[1]) and the Taiwanese. Convince them that an American pullback will be fine for them, and I’ll support America pulling back.
Until then, a multi-polar world among authoritarian aristocracies is a pipe-dream. Everyone hates American hegemony until you ask them what other hegemony they would like.
So missiles we must make, and make them cheaper we can.
[1] https://www.voanews.com/amp/new-poll-reveals-how-ukrainians-...
Until then, a multi-polar world among authoritarian aristocracies is a pipe-dream. Everyone hates American hegemony until you ask them what other hegemony they would like.
So missiles we must make, and make them cheaper we can.
[1] https://www.voanews.com/amp/new-poll-reveals-how-ukrainians-...
resters(1)
[deleted]
PG is good buddies with Peter Thiel. Why do you think he’s not a part of this neo-monarchist SV milieu?
As far as I know, that's not the case. I mean, I don't know who all of PG's friends are, but I assume you don't either.
Yeah he just admiringly quotes him on his X timeline. Get real.
[deleted]
Those articles kept reminding me that I am right to be very cynical. Is lobbying #foundermode? /s
bbqfog(6)
mdgrech23(1)
zooq_ai(2)
[flagged]
The worst are the seed stage founders complaining about the proposed paper gains tax (while not knowing enough about it to answer if it would apply to startup equity) because they’re definitely going to have enough value for the $100MM threshold to apply to them.
When the income tax was first passed it applied to less than 1% of citizens, yet look where we are now. Just because a new law doesn’t apply to you personally doesn’t mean you can’t be concerned about the potential downstream effects.
Slippery slope arguments with taxes make no sense. A new tax could appear any day on any income level.
> because they’re definitely going to have enough value for the $100MM threshold to apply to them.
Tax cutoffs have this habit of drifting downward over time (the whole, "eventually you run out of other people's money" thing). See the original revenue act of 1913 (modern US income tax). At first it was 1% starting at today's equivalent of $93K and didn't go any higher until you made the equivalent of about $500K. And today, well, it's a little different.
New taxes are always pitched this way -- "oh it'll never affect you, just those rich people, what's your problem?"
Tax cutoffs have this habit of drifting downward over time (the whole, "eventually you run out of other people's money" thing). See the original revenue act of 1913 (modern US income tax). At first it was 1% starting at today's equivalent of $93K and didn't go any higher until you made the equivalent of about $500K. And today, well, it's a little different.
New taxes are always pitched this way -- "oh it'll never affect you, just those rich people, what's your problem?"
Hillary Clinton went on TV and said we should get rid of Section 230 in order to moderate content. So is it really that surprising that SV made a right turn?
This argument doesn't hold water. Hillary Clinton is kind of irrelevant at this point. She doesn't hold any kind of elected office and remains pretty unpopular among lefties after losing in 2016. Meanwhile Trump openly tried to reduce the protections of Section 230 while he was president[1].
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/05/28/what-is-s...
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/05/28/what-is-s...
That was back in 2020 when he was banned on Twitter (back when it was still Twitter). I think its fair to say he wont be banned on X.
Donald Trump is strongly against Section 230.
https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/trump-and-section-230-what-know
https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/trump-and-section-230-what-know
SV made the choice before (by accepting money from dictatorships for political influence via social media). Attempts at regulation were a reaction to that.
There's no way the situation can stay like that forever. There will be regulation like there's regulation of TV, radio, press, etc.
Without regulation you don't get a libertarian utopia - you just get oligarchy.
There's no way the situation can stay like that forever. There will be regulation like there's regulation of TV, radio, press, etc.
Without regulation you don't get a libertarian utopia - you just get oligarchy.
Wait, the libertarian utopia IS oligarchy. So it is all right by their standards.
There's orders of magnitude more libertarians than oligarchs. It's even in the name :)
Most libertarians aren't rational egoists, they are just naive losers oligarchs take advantage of to get more power.
Most libertarians aren't rational egoists, they are just naive losers oligarchs take advantage of to get more power.
They still firmly believe they'll be the oligarchs, just like lots of people think if they were in medieval Europe they would be nobles or knights.
> cyber-libretarians like Ron Wyden
This dude is a certified ghoul.
In May 2017, Wyden co-sponsored the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, Senate Bill 720, which made it a federal crime, punishable by a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment,[88] for Americans to encourage or participate in boycotts against Israel and Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories if protesting actions by the Israeli government. The bill would make it legal for U.S. states to refuse to do business with contractors that engage in boycotts against Israel.[89] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyden#Israel
This dude is a certified ghoul.
In May 2017, Wyden co-sponsored the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, Senate Bill 720, which made it a federal crime, punishable by a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment,[88] for Americans to encourage or participate in boycotts against Israel and Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories if protesting actions by the Israeli government. The bill would make it legal for U.S. states to refuse to do business with contractors that engage in boycotts against Israel.[89] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyden#Israel
[flagged]
Could you please stop posting in the flamewar style? Your account has been doing it a ton, it's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
I don't want to ban you because you clearly know a lot of things and have posted quite a few good things over the years. But your comments include so much name-calling, swipes, snark, and nastiness that you're not leaving much choice.
Here's one of many examples, on an unrelated topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41630774. That's a great comment, ruined by name-calling and personal attack. On the subject of cartoons of all things! There's no need to treat other people this way, or use the comment section to vent bile like that.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
I don't want to ban you because you clearly know a lot of things and have posted quite a few good things over the years. But your comments include so much name-calling, swipes, snark, and nastiness that you're not leaving much choice.
Here's one of many examples, on an unrelated topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41630774. That's a great comment, ruined by name-calling and personal attack. On the subject of cartoons of all things! There's no need to treat other people this way, or use the comment section to vent bile like that.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Der_Einzige(1)
I don't know what a cyber-libertarian is but Bernie Sanders is completely irrelevant (literally). The 3 bills he sponsored that became law were renaming highways and post-offices. The guy is a meme at this point. Look how he rolled over for the DNC two cycles in a row.
Here are his accomplishments: https://www.congress.gov/member/bernard-sanders/S000033?q=%7...
If you look at co-sponsored, its more of the same fluff. I'd say he's pretty ineffective.
Here are his accomplishments: https://www.congress.gov/member/bernard-sanders/S000033?q=%7...
If you look at co-sponsored, its more of the same fluff. I'd say he's pretty ineffective.
FWIW, your post prompted me to take a bit of time to research. I found this interesting:
"According to The New York Times, "Big legislation largely eludes Mr. Sanders because his ideas are usually far to the left of the majority of the Senate ... Mr. Sanders has largely found ways to press his agenda through appending small provisions to the larger bills of others."[146] During his time in the Senate, he had lower legislative effectiveness than the average senator, as measured by the number of sponsored bills that passed and successful amendments made.[147] Nevertheless, he has sponsored over 500 amendments to bills,[148] many of which became law."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders
"According to The New York Times, "Big legislation largely eludes Mr. Sanders because his ideas are usually far to the left of the majority of the Senate ... Mr. Sanders has largely found ways to press his agenda through appending small provisions to the larger bills of others."[146] During his time in the Senate, he had lower legislative effectiveness than the average senator, as measured by the number of sponsored bills that passed and successful amendments made.[147] Nevertheless, he has sponsored over 500 amendments to bills,[148] many of which became law."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders
Thats the conclusion I came to. It seems like he'd be more effective as a consultant/advisor or non-elected official. Taking up a valuable senate seat to make amendments seems like a waste of influence.
My take is that he's still a successful lawmaker, it's just that he is more successful implementing his agenda with amendments rather than standalone bills.
Eh, I was curious and did some more research. Look at Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Bob Casey Jr. (D-PA), and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), all of whom have been serving similar amount of time - they have sponsored bills over 1k, co-sponsored ranging from 3k to 8k. Compare that to Bernie's ~ 200 co-sponsored and 3 sponsored ... I'd say thats a very weak performance compared to his peers.
bbqfog(1)
Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are both cyber libertarians so I don’t see the problem.
> Folks that think that Trump and his friends like "freedom of speech" or any of the type of techno freedoms we take for granted are in for a deeply rude awakening. The reality is that democrats are so, SO much better on most cyber issues that you're actually a deplorable if you are voting for trump.
I'm curious as to why you conclude that Democrats are better than Republicans in terms of IT liberty. Trump ended operation choke point, a program of essentially harassing banks into dropping certain customers [1]. De-banking is, in my opinion, one of the most important threats to "cyber liberties" since it's absolutely crucial for any business to survive. Individuals who are de-banked also find it incredibly difficult to survive: Plenty of services, including apartments and HOAs, do not accept non-electronic payments.
The censorship of "misinformation" (much of which later turned out to be true) also grew considerably under the 2020 administration, which did in fact reach out to social media companies to try and influence their decision making. One of the more salient examples was covered by HN here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41365868 To be clear, I'm not concerned about private companies autonomously deciding what to host. I take issue with the government coercing companies into making moderation decisions. This has huge potential for abuse, such as forcing the takedown of politically disadvantageous material.
Both Republicans and Democrats are in favor of getting rid of Section 230, but for essentially totally different reasons: Republicans seem to want to return to the precedence set by Cubby Inc. vs. CompuServe [2]. Democrats seem to want to narrowly repeal Section 230 to empower the government to dictate the contents of social media. Both are negative in my opinion, but the patter seems more insidious and prone to long term harm.
And to be clear, these issues are far, far from enough to get me to vote for Trump. I'm interested in hearing the counter-claim, that the Democrat party is better in terms of cyber liberties.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc.
I'm curious as to why you conclude that Democrats are better than Republicans in terms of IT liberty. Trump ended operation choke point, a program of essentially harassing banks into dropping certain customers [1]. De-banking is, in my opinion, one of the most important threats to "cyber liberties" since it's absolutely crucial for any business to survive. Individuals who are de-banked also find it incredibly difficult to survive: Plenty of services, including apartments and HOAs, do not accept non-electronic payments.
The censorship of "misinformation" (much of which later turned out to be true) also grew considerably under the 2020 administration, which did in fact reach out to social media companies to try and influence their decision making. One of the more salient examples was covered by HN here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41365868 To be clear, I'm not concerned about private companies autonomously deciding what to host. I take issue with the government coercing companies into making moderation decisions. This has huge potential for abuse, such as forcing the takedown of politically disadvantageous material.
Both Republicans and Democrats are in favor of getting rid of Section 230, but for essentially totally different reasons: Republicans seem to want to return to the precedence set by Cubby Inc. vs. CompuServe [2]. Democrats seem to want to narrowly repeal Section 230 to empower the government to dictate the contents of social media. Both are negative in my opinion, but the patter seems more insidious and prone to long term harm.
And to be clear, these issues are far, far from enough to get me to vote for Trump. I'm interested in hearing the counter-claim, that the Democrat party is better in terms of cyber liberties.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc.
Bernie Sanders is a cyber-libertarian? What does that mean?
> The right-wing turn is absolutely disgusting and should be shattered as soon as possible with prejudice.
Do you understand how you are the problem here?
Silicon Valley didn't care about politics until politicians started getting involved and attempting to impose censorship regimes, aggressive unrealized gains taxation, and killing crypto assets. Tech startups were find being ignored.
But as you illustrate, you can't ignore DC if it chooses not to ignore you. If people like you want to use the power of the state to "shatter" anyone you politically disagree with, well, of course the tech companies will hit back.
Do you understand how you are the problem here?
Silicon Valley didn't care about politics until politicians started getting involved and attempting to impose censorship regimes, aggressive unrealized gains taxation, and killing crypto assets. Tech startups were find being ignored.
But as you illustrate, you can't ignore DC if it chooses not to ignore you. If people like you want to use the power of the state to "shatter" anyone you politically disagree with, well, of course the tech companies will hit back.
Why are you being a Democrat shill? Didn't you see that recent video of Democratic party boss Hillary Clinton saying the quiet part outloud? If the social media isn't censored, "we lose control." And by "we", she didn't mean you and me.
I just don't see this as "SO much better."
I just don't see this as "SO much better."
From "Don't be evil" to "We're the baddies".