This is not "news". Not news in the sense of "actuality for eyeballs" and not news for those whose job it is to study societal trends and processes.
It might be new and weird for you. You might want to take an other look, as this is the kind of information you will normally only see in academia. That it got your attention is an exceptional blip.
For those in academia, they have been paying attention for years.
The republic of Weimar was overthrown by captains of industry, far right and cultists that reached a shared understanding. It was not just "Hitler".
So for an international community of well-meaning, informed people in academia and governments current events are highly alarming, as the transition implies lots of other things.
The big picture stories do not normally reach the public, and now it almost sounds like a conspiracy theory.
For some it is not a coincidence that on a Musk platform conspiracy theories are heavily boosted. At least it makes a sane conversation about the currents of our time very hard.
Wealthy people have always had tremendous, disproportionate political influence. Now they're just almost all from tech, as opposed to finance/media/trusts.
That's why it's a meaningless statistic. Because zero net worth is the status many people are in when young - which makes sense, you haven't had time to build any net worth! And negative net worth happens when you take on debt, most commonly in the US student debt.
Maybe there is a valid metric worth talking about, but this metric rates the average student in med school as extremely badly off, despite them very likely going on to become one of the top 10% when they're older. So this statistic is just not a very good way to look at this.
They most likely meant "more than 10% of the population own combined". That's a level of wealth inequality last seen in the old medieval fiefdom ages, and more than a few rulers met a premature end...
It looks like[1] combining the bottom 10% gets you a substantially negative number, such that even the bottom 1% have more wealth than the bottom 10% combined.
The bottom and top 10% of most groups are going to be odd in this way.
Imagine if you took the entire population and asked them to run a 10k. It's very likely that 10% couldn't even finish it whereas the top 1% would be close to race pace.
I know tons of people who have nothing. Literally nothing other than things like, I dunno, their cell phone and clothes. _Anyone_ has more than a thousand of them combined.
If you choose the correct group of "the least well off" then it's like trying to divide by zero.
Changes are high that your country is a kleptocracy or dictatorship, or has a very weak system. Huge wealth imbalance is a STRONG MARKER of malformed governance.
A well functioning democracy has way less income inequality. Desperate people do not have the "luxury" of being a democratic participant.
That is why autocracies love miserable, poor people.
> A well functioning democracy has way less income inequality.
Income inequality isn't that high though, is it? The rich generally try to do everything they can to avoid income as income is taxed. In the US, somewhere around 20% of the population are in the top 1% when observed over time.
> Last election someone just casually threw around $300.000.000 to buy himself into government.
That doesn't imply a high income or some extreme income inequality, though. There are the usual tricks like amassing wealth and borrowing against it in order to secure access to dollars without needing an income.
There is income inequality to some degree. Some people do make more than others. That is undeniably seen in income data. But is the income inequality really that high?
ok, whether you file your billions as income or as capital does not matter.
What matters is
1. in a democracy every vote should be counted equal
2. if just a tiny fraction of the populace has immense financial power
2a. you risk they get to turn that into political power
2b. effectively demolishing point 1
You are now at step 2b. The next steps I would not even mention.
> whether you file your billions as income or as capital does not matter.
It does matter. We are talking specifically about income inequality. Wealth inequality would be a very different topic.
> in a democracy every vote should be counted equal
But in a representative democracy you don't normally cast an official vote yourself. Referendums are rare. You only talk to your representative and then rely on him to vote your way at the official vote. The constituents could theoretically cast a formal vote at the local level to provide checks and balances to ensure that the representative is representing when it comes down to the final vote, but that's a lot of work. In theory, representative democracy assumes locals will still talk with each other and any discrepancies will be found even without a formal ballot. In practice, I doubt that happens. Talking to neighbours is still a lot of work.
In fact, because democracy is hard work, most people won't ever speak to their representative even once! That is a challenge for democracy as even if you have a perfectly faithful representative, they can only represent those who take the time to say their piece. The perfectly faithful representative is unable to read minds. That is impossible. If you don't talk to them, they can't know what you are thinking.
Yes, this does give the wealthy an advantage as:
1. The wealthy tend to be, on average, more confrontational and would enjoy spending all day talking to a representative. They don't consider it the chore the average person does.
2. The wealthy tend to be able to buy time to spend with a representative. They can afford to spend all day talking. And if they don't want to do it personally, they can hire someone to do it for them.
This is the inherit flaw of democracy. Even a direct democracy ultimately suffers the same problem of only serving those who can afford to participate. Not everyone buys into democracy being the be all and end all for that reason. But no system is perfect.
The topic of the OP is abusing ones outsized financial power to thwart the democratic process. I am fine with either cause you focus on, both are important.
I do not disagree with your post, but imho I propose to take another angle.
> But in a representative democracy you don't normally cast an official vote yourself
True,
1. so what you need is *information*. Here you need an independent press, to give accurate information on what is happening and how the different political parties/representatives conduct themself. The press in the USA is an oligarch party. They fail to inform, to weed out marketing from content. Circus sells better than information, outrage content is more lucrative than facts and research. The editorial boards are directed by commercial ownership.
2. so what you need is *independent representatives*. You think about people like Musk having more time to persuade a representative. Here might be a misunderstanding. You are not rich if you can buy four sports cars and a big mansion. You are rich when you can *buy your representatives*. There are lots people looking for upward mobility, be it in institutions, the judicial system or in political parties. You sponsor a career.
There is a way out of this doom loop, but it can't do without erecting those two pillars. If corporate media distorts reality, you have to go grassroots to spread information.
That is *the power of democracy*: people taking initiative on their own.
> The topic of the OP is abusing ones outsized financial power to thwart the democratic process.
As the topic progressed, it was brought up that a functioning democracy has "way less" income inequality. Which is where I asked if there is really that much income inequality as-is? In most places, the US included, there is a strong disincentive to have an income, and especially a high income. It is surprising to me that income inequality might be that far out of whack because of that.
There are one-time income windfalls, like the sale of a high value asset, or winning the lottery. Hence how 20% of the population can, somewhat counterintuitively, be in the top 1%. But I am not sure that is in line with the intent of the comment. If everyone got a chance to have one year with a $100 million dollar income, but otherwise only make $30,000, you would have very high income inequality on a single year basis, but in the end everyone would make the same amount. I am not sure that would impact democracy like one person making $100 million each year with everyone else making $30,000 each year.
> I propose to take another angle.
It seems to me that angle was already taken, and was already discussed to death before I showed up. I find this topic to be far more interesting, and one that we have barely just scratched the surface of, leaving no reason to pack up and find a new topic. There is no obligation for you to participate if you do not find it interesting in kind, of course, but I do not see the value in taking another angle out of the blue without natural emergence.
> As the topic progressed, it was brought up that a functioning democracy has "way less" income inequality.
I brought it up, but should have said wealth inequality to avoid any technicalities. The fish we are talking about have the means to move the nets like they want, so for our subject is does not even matter.
Democratic societies with an educated populace, with access to health care, equal rights and a functioning judicial system usually have less anomalies in wealth distribution too.
Kleptocracies usually have an extremely rich but small elite, and a poor populace that have less access to education, health and rights.
That's all. But as a bonus: the gdp/pp is higher in democratic societies than in kleptocracies. But that is another topic.
> but should have said wealth inequality to avoid any technicalities.
But that would be an entirely different discussion, and one not particularly interesting as the wealth inequality impact is much more clear. Regardless of how we landed here, we did, and I think it is an interesting topic that is worth diving into. You must agree, given your continued participation?
What does make you think these people with their $$$$$$$$$$$$ have no friends? Your problem is not that there are only 3, but that the networks in which they operate think they would be better of without democracy.
Thiel wants to end democracy and has immense influence. If it was only just about money.... More info via lemma Accelerationism.
Musk just bought the White House for himself after having bought Twitter, he is a Thiel protege. Bezos had to swear allegiance.
There might come a time were these kind of background information articles aren´t just flagged directly, but will not even appear anymore in the first place.
In the past even Trump tried to get a foot in the door by the Dems. Depending on ones information environment, the unwillingness to protect the market from monopolistic practices, the hereditary lines in government and the outsized power of oligarchies are definitively "considered strange or newsworthy".
The heat has been steadily going up, taking a huge upward turn the last 15 years. What you are witnessing now is that the glacier is making rumbling sounds and people starting to notice that the thing is coming down. Many people have the feeling the atmosphere is odd, but can still be distracted with outrage over transgenders or dog eating Haitians.
So yes, the issues are systematic. But do not make a mistake, a tipping point has been passed. The GOP clan does not respect limits, institutions, truth, the rule of law, democracy, separation of powers. They don't even think they need to fake decency anymore.
Nobody can predict the future, but if you hear a thundering sound, you better should not act like nothing has changed. It is a system where people think in terms of eating or being eaten.
Well if you take into account that Peter Thiel invested heavily to fund the Vice President, and Elon Musk funded Donald Trump and optimized Twitter to promote Donald Trump (that cost is not factored in the funding I believe), and now will have a direct say on government bodies not to mention influence and direct access to the President.
So it's not a takeover, but direct government access and influence, out in the open.
This is all under the conspiratorial premise that the "deep state" was captured by private interests... all to be replaced by the private interests of the richest men alive.
It's a highly confusing narrative, and I'd love to understand those who see this in a positive light.
> I'd love to understand those who see this in a positive light.
Those who see this in a positive light cannot provide you with understanding. They have been catered to on deep beliefs and fears, not been messaged to on a rational level. The messaging is highly irrational and full of discrepancies, and so we all have been boarded with streams of fake news, bothsidisms, false balance, nihilism, sane washing, what not.
I say they... But we all rather reason with our guts than with our brains, it is less effort. We as humans are all prone to fallacies.
That doesn't count because they're defending "Our Democracy" from those who don't agree with them. Such noble people. Snark aside, it really is interesting to see how much people are now cheering on authoritarianism as long as they think it will service their ideology (which is the only one true ideology). Of course, monsters usually get tired of being told what to do and turn on those foolish enough to create the monster in the first place... along with most everyone else. They do get to feel wonderful about their virtue in creating the monster they think will destroy anything in the way of their utopia. The feeling isn't so wonderful once their creation that they empowered turns on them (and most everyone else) and delivers misery instead of the promised nirvana.
It’s an interesting debate: are things less democratic now than at other points in American history? Or have the wealthy always been able to buy influence in this way?
My opinion is that institutional “norms” are not being followed lately, any maybe that makes this sort of corruption more blatant, but that this relationship between business and government is a feature of American government from the start.
See the hundreds of anecdotes from “Making of an Atlantic Ruling Class” (1984, Kies van der Pijl) or “A People’s History of the United States” (1980, Howard Zinn).
In capitalism, democracy is window dressing, the tool for settling disputes among the upper class.
It seems to me that the Andrew Carnegies of the world had a sense of noblesse oblige which led them to try to use their wealth to make the world better. Then we had more modern businessmen who were just focused on making money. However, now with people like Musk we have billionaires who are proactively making the world worse.
Don't get me wrong, billionaires have always hurt people, but at least there used to be some sort of norms that they followed.
>It seems to me that the Andrew Carnegies of the world had a sense of noblesse oblige which led them to try to use their wealth to make the world better. Then we had more modern businessmen who were just focused on making money. However, now with people like Musk we have billionaires who are proactively making the world worse.
1. I feel like you're giving too much credit to Andrew Carnegies, who was literally a "robber baron"[1]. He might have engaged in some philanthropy, but to suggest he wasn't "just focused on making money" is viewing the past with rose tinted glasses.
2. Define "use their wealth to make the world better". Does bill gates count? What about george soros or charles koch? Elon musk ostensibly wants humans to colonize mars. Why doesn't that count as "use their wealth to make the world better"?
> My opinion is that institutional “norms” are not being followed lately, any maybe that makes this sort of corruption more blatant, but that this relationship between business and government is a feature of American government from the start.
1. Indeed. The Dems are just starting to realize that for the GOP to gain power anything goes, where previously there was a common understanding of what is of limits. So anyone and anything is turned into a tool. Fake news, gerry mandering, voter buying, voter suppression, smearing, attacking family members, appointing compromised clients as justice, immigrants, buying editorial boards, obstructing disaster relief, fake news on covid, denying health care to woman so they die and so on.
This is not politics anymore. This is total contempt for the system. A contempt shared by the tech bro's.
2. Yes, there has always been a brown current in the US elites. The coup in 1933 failed due to the press not providing enough support, so it lacked the support of the general public: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
Butler, a retired Marine Corps major general, testified under oath that wealthy businessmen were plotting to create a fascist veterans' organization with him as its leader and use it in a coup d'état to overthrow Roosevelt.
Although no one was prosecuted, the congressional committee final report said, "there is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient."
It looks like the US elites are hesitant to prosecute their own, even when trying to stage a coup.
The USA has always had big flaws in its democratic constitution. They always has struggled with oligarchy, even the press is a vehicle of super wealthy owners.
This article presents you with a cold shower. That does not mean that other things got less bad. You are not helped by whatabouttisms and false balance.
Focus on what you think is right. Fight for change.
I love voting third party, mostly because my state is super blue and I can do so. If you’re left in a super red state, then you really only have one option. This means that if you want to change the dichotomy a critical mass of third party voting needs to be achieved, which is becoming harder and harder.
So in this case, focusing on what you think is right - which might be something that has no representation - leads to lower voter turnout, or people splitting the vote. I believe this is a huge factor in Trump’s second victory.
Maybe you might have a bigger chance to force a change inside a party, but currently only the Dems do have something that resemble a political party.
Voters have no say in GOP, even the GOP leadership themself doesn't have anymore. Last election there was a large out-walk, overtake is now complete. Just a few people behind the MAGA facade call the shots atm.
After reading Yuval Noah Harari’s book ‘Sapiens’, it made me realize how little humans have changed, even as we approach creating AGI. We still form tribes, vilifying anyone who doesn’t conform to our rules. A dissenting opinion is strictly forbidden.
Elon Musk, on the verge of running two trillion-dollar companies (Tesla and soon in the future SpaceX; xAI might become one also), is single handily driving humans to become interstellar species. Yet, because he doesn’t align with certain ideologies like transgender issues or immigration, he’s labeled a fascist and his achievements dismissed.
Despite searching, I find no evidence of legal or moral wrongdoing on his part—just bureaucrats finding ways to stand in the way, like the Delaware judge repeatedly undermining shareholder-approved decisions on his pay package. Musk may be arrogant, childish, or linked to the manosphere, but his contributions far outweigh his flaws. It’s not even close.
Your "interstellar species" should be "interplanetary species" as we have no way to get people to another star.
We totally lack the ability to make an independent biosphere, and without that the term "interplanetary" is rather meaningless.
The Trieste bathyscaphe made it to the bottom of the ocean but we do not have underwater colonies, nor seasteading.
Even our colonies on Antarctica are highly subsidized national prestige projects.
If "multiplanetary" is something like "can get to another planet and back" then the Manned Venus flyby proposal shows we could have done that with 1970s technology.
But there's a reason no one visited the Challenger Deep in the 52 years between Trieste and the Deepsea Challenge - remote exploration is cheaper and safer. We haven't even gotten someone out to the Moon's orbit since 1973.
Are they? Or the real mafia took over US healthcare long time ago? How about Visa/MC monopoly taking three pennies from every damn transaction for three decades now? I detest most of the original Paypal crew but there are far worse offenders in corporate America. Hate him or not, Musk made EVs a reality. Thiel backed some of the biggest startups in modern history. Same for Reid Hoffman. These guys are your typical American businessmen.
But the job description was for "typical American statesmen". Business
skills are great. But I think people over-estimate their value on the
world stage.
> How about Visa/MC monopoly taking three pennies from every damn transaction
If they were, who do you think would be paying for your 1-3 pennies of cashback/rewards points on every said transaction? The bulk of card payment fees goes to the issuers as interchange, not to Visa/MC or the acquiring bank or payment service provider.
That's not to say that the competitive landscape in that space doesn't leave anything to be desired, but nothing will get improved by misstating the problem.
> If they were, who do you think would be paying for your 1-3 pennies of cashback/rewards points on every said transaction? The bulk of card payment fees goes to the issuers as interchange, not to Visa/MC or the acquiring bank or payment service provider.
Visa/MC and everyone else along the chain makes insane amounts of money even on relative pittances, simply because of the market size they corner.
That's particularly obscene in Europe - we already have SEPA Direct Debit and Instant Payment, we could rework national schemes like Girocard (that worked under the precursor scheme of SEPA DD) to work with it, but instead we add VISA and MC's debit card schemes to the payment flow for no reason at all.
They earn a non-negligible cut, yes, but stating that they're "taking 1-3 pennies" is simply not true (or rather, you'd have to expand your statement to "the card payments industry in collaboration with consumers").
Rewards and interchange foster a very bad market structure (it's a kind of "tragedy of the commons" in that it's the rational move to participate in this scheme as a consumer with good credit, and consumers with bad credit are ultimately paying for it), and the EU (in my view correctly) recognized that and capped most interchange rates significantly.
But if you look into the details, you'll find that they did not do anything about Visa's or Mastercard's share of the card fees (at least so far).
> we could rework national schemes like Girocard
That would need a lot of reworking to be a real competitor. Girocard does not have a viable story for online payments (no actual processing capabilities beyond some Apple Pay only pilots, importantly no dispute resolution mechanism, which is critical for online payments, etc).
It is a great low-fee payment method at the POS, though, and I'd love to see it compete EU-wide!
> They earn a non-negligible cut, yes, but stating that they're "taking 1-3 pennies" is simply not true (or rather, you'd have to expand your statement to "the card payments industry in collaboration with consumers").
That's the range of fees that the merchants have to pay [1], subtract about 1% for "cashback" programs, and that leaves 1-2% to Mastercard, the payment processor service and the banks of the consumer and the store. It's a hefty amount of money, no matter what - and MC has a very healthy profit margin [2].
> Girocard does not have a viable story for online payments (no actual processing capabilities beyond some Apple Pay only pilots, importantly no dispute resolution mechanism, which is critical for online payments, etc).
I'm talking about physical presence payments primarily. But for online, SEPA Instant Transfer works out just fine - 10 seconds processing time from payment initiation to confirmation for the merchant, and dispute/chargeback has been a thing in SEPA Direct Debit and SEPA transfers from the start. Only thing is quite a few banks don't support it because their core IT is decades old.
> for online, SEPA Instant Transfer works out just fine
How? There is zero way to get back your money in case of problems as a payer!
> dispute/chargeback has been a thing in SEPA Direct Debit and SEPA transfers from the start.
Absolutely not for outbound transfers. You can chase a non-delivering merchant in court, but that's about it.
For direct debit, the merchant has the equivalent problem – the payer can claw their money back without any justification ("I feel like spending it elsewhere" is a valid reason!) or recourse.
> Only thing is quite a few banks don't support it because their core IT is decades old.
It has absolutely nothing to do with "banks not supporting it because of old IT". There just is no incentive for them to play the role of arbiter between a payer and a payee at all! Consequently, there is no framework for it.
SEPA (I)CT and DD are very efficient solutions for online payments only when payer and payee already extend significant trust in at least one direction. If there's mutual distrust, they are a terrible fit, and there's a reason people prefer cards or other schemes (sometimes layered on top of SEPA) providing dispute resolution.
Of course they're celebrating Donald Trump: he's going to cut their taxes, loosen restrictions around M&A, and create a tamer SEC and FTC. They're aging Gen-Xers, with their best years behind them, and are ready for their big cash-out.
I would imagine your quality of life is not significantly different with a net worth of 10 billion vs 100 billion, but at that point it's probably more about things like ego.
No, it isn't about a big cash-out. It is about the thing people crave once they have more money than they can physically spend on things that are fun: power.
Now questions is do they do more damage inside or outside? Maybe they are too busy doing the stuff in official positions to ruin peoples live with their companies...
This brief note tells of an x-mas party organised by the "All-In" podcast at Palace of Fine Arts in San Francisco on December 7. A correspondent from Economist was there and "was made to feel most unwelcome".
But before she was kicked out,^1 she witnessed "a riotous celebration of how a clique of billionaires, the so-called PayPal Mafia, helped cinch Donald Trump's election vicory and has taken Washington by storm".
The title of the article is taken from a comment by a party attendee, Aaron Levie, founder of Box: "The PayPal Mafia's takeover of the government is now complete, so good work on that."
1. When she "sought a word with Jason Calacanis, a co-host dressed as a jovial Santa Claus on stage, he flew into a rage, shouting "Don't talk to journalists!". A few minutes later she was kicked out.
What is this? A stub of an article with no author whose only content is "Trump is best buddies with a group of tech bros" with no comment on what that means or predictions about what policy decisions it implies. Is this AI-generated?
The full version is also a stub. The stubbiness of it is because they weren't able to talk to anyone. The moment the organizers realized they were an Economist writer they got thrown out.
Even if they weren't able to talk to anyone at this particular event, they could write much more on the subject. I'm disappointed that the article "The PayPal Mafia is taking over America’s government" is just "there was some Trump event, right-wing tech bros that raised money for Trump were there, they don't like OpenAI, legacy media and the Economist, and they threw us out" and then it ends. I feel like I was baited into reading this, expecting some deeper analysis of the relationship between Trump and his new tech friends and it's consequences. Even the hate for "legacy media" is a thing that they could write much about, and that short article could be a nice introduction for a deep dive about that. But as it stands, this article has little value.
Well yeah, they could have done written many interesting and useful things but they chose to write about how awful the "male energy" was instead. That's why they now get tossed out of the places where things are happening, where once they'd have been welcomed.
I say this sincerely: The userbase here actually isn't that different from Reddit.
There's a slightly heavier technical leaning, but otherwise most political and social positions are essentially Reddit perhaps owing to Silicon Valley roots and culture.
It's more like 2011 reddit when the commenters there were preoccupied with bitcoin, the age of consent, and ron paul. Reddit is too big and mainstream for a political consensus now.
Honestly, I find the comments on HN to be generally more right-leaning and neo liberal than on Reddit. It's very weird and very frustrating, especially when today the right means things like denying healthcare to people and taking away womens' rights.
Your comment on hackernews arguing that hackernews comments don’t sound like Reddit comments sounds exactly like a comment I would expect to read on Reddit.
Edit: I was wrong. Leaving the post for posterity. I will reference it in my next job interview.
The best part is that if you question or challenge the posters, you are likely to quickly get a sufficient number of downvotes to remove your message.
I generally like the way HN is set up, but having a basic question on a politically sensitive topic get silenced has made me wonder how many valuable conversations never see the light of day.
grok/: write an introduction text similar to the Star Wars intro, where it's talking about how Hacker News forum has turned into Facebook's low level quality comments
Answer:
In a galaxy not so far away, where once thrived a beacon of intellectual discourse, the revered forum known as Hacker News has fallen to the dark side.
Long ago, in an era of enlightenment, this platform was a sanctuary for the tech-savvy, a place where ideas soared and innovations were born. But now, the force of mediocrity has swept through its ranks.
The once-lucid threads, filled with insightful comments and thoughtful debate, have been overshadowed by the shadow of banality. Like the sprawling empire of social media, the quality of discussion has plummeted, mirroring the low-level, superficial chatter found on the likes of a certain blue and white social network.
The age of wisdom has given way to the reign of memes, where upvotes are traded not for substance, but for the fleeting thrill of viral content. In this new era, the Hacker News we once knew is but a distant memory, lost in a sea of triviality.
It is a period of declining discourse. Hacker News, once a beacon of insightful tech discussion, has fallen into disarray.
Rebel posters, once armed with knowledge and wit, now find themselves drowned out by an onslaught of low-quality comments, reminiscent of the darkest corners of social media.
The once proud community, known for its intellectual rigor, now echoes with the vacuous banter typical of...
FACEBOOK.
In their quest for upvotes, users have traded depth for memes, substance for sensationalism.
Will the spirit of true tech conversation be restored, or will Hacker News forever be lost to the abyss of likes and shares?
The fate of meaningful dialogue hangs in the balance...
It is useful for me to help calibrate my predictions. Right now, I can look at the cabinet picks and policy statements that the incoming administration has announced and make some estimates about what impacts that will have, and I can do the same 4 years from now. But unless I remember to compare my thoughts about what might happen after reading this article to what actually happens after waiting a year, those predictions won't get any better.
The Economist is a pretty reputable publication. Yes they have some biases but “slander” is a strong term that insinuates that it doesn’t have a strong grounding in facts or is written to explicitly cause uproar and not inform. It belongs to places like The Sun or The Daily Mail.
Would you please point to an example or two where it is so one-sided that it’s far from the truth?
Stronger: The Economist is used to having to operate under UK libel laws, which are far stronger than US laws. Truth is an absolute defense against a claim of libel in the US; in the UK it isn't.
So accusing them of slander is not particularly believable. I'd need to see a specific claim, evidence that the claim was false, and evidence that the falsehood rose to the legal standard of slander. A bare claim, with no evidence, just looks like overheated rhetoric by someone who doesn't like The Economist's position, but who can't actually do the work of refuting it.
Damages are only required (in certain countries) for a legal case of slander to be successful, they're not needed to fulfil the definition of slander.
It would be slander if I said the words "HN user drw85 has never said a sentence that didn't contain racist abuse", even if my saying it has no impact on you or anyone at all.
(Just as it would be libellous - the equivalent of slanderous but for written rather than spoken lies about people - if I wrote a comment here on HN accusing you of being a mass murderer, even if you don't notice the comment and no law enforcement ever consider it of interest nor any other effects.)
'a false, spoken statement about someone which damages that person's reputation, or the making of such a statement'
I guess the distinction is important, because i could make a false statement that is not damaging, like 'swores has a red nose.', which might be a joke and thus is a false statement but not damaging nor slander.
In the US, reporting true things is literally never considered slander [0][1][2].
The legal system has recognized truth as a wholly adequate defense to claims of defamation (which includes slander) dating back to 1734 [3] - before the Constitution even written (1787).
--
[0] - "Under the United States law, a statement cannot be held to be actionable as slanderous or libellous if the statement is true but has "slight inaccuracies of expression", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_truth
> Trump will talk to literally anyone because his key non-malevolent talent is playing the media like a violin.
Then why not 60 Minutes? That is the traditional interview one does ahead of an election. He had tried before, and walked out in disgust when given even the slightest fact check. It would seem the only critical interviews he can finish are those he's too stupid to realize are making him look bad ("I don't want testing").
It is a notable exception but it is a complicated one; not what it seems.
For one thing, Trump will talk to 60 Minutes when it suits him, I suspect. There is no journalist who has criticised him who he hasn't called terrible names and then spoken to again -- it's a pattern. He invites his critics back in. And they will always come back.
He hasn't locked out 60 Minutes the way that simply refusing to talk to journalists, or booting them out of the room, does. The way he responded to 60 Minutes was responding to the media. He responded in the media. He levelled accusations, they responded to his accusations. On his terms.
Like a violin.
And then when he does a 60 Minutes interview again -- which he will -- he will humiliate them for coming back, at least once, in that interview.
I am not saying this as a fan of the man; I believe all his other talents to be malevolent. But I am saying he is unbelievably, astonishingly good at what he does to the media for his benefit.
To. Not with. Not for. To.
For example, he rails against leaks but he is the biggest leaker. He rails against anonymous sources but he speaks off the record through proxies all the time. It's dark arts genius.
"Don't speak to journalists" is comically inept on the Trump scale. Anyone who thinks they are comparable strategies is not paying attention.
If it's dark genius then why doesn't it work for folks like Eric Adams or even other MAGA candidates?
My guess is he's actually lowered the bar of expectations so low that it cannot get any lower, it's on the floor. And folks inclined to circle the party wagons are willing to overlook at lot, something they would never do for outsider candidates who don't wear their colors or haven't lowered their own bar.
> If it's dark genius then why doesn't it work for folks like Eric Adams or even other MAGA candidates?
Because they aren't as good at it as he is. He is relentless at this because he has an unquenchable need to be the centre of everything, good or bad. He is a malignant narcissist; he doesn't expend the slightest bit of energy worrying if something is true or false.
I think he's an appalling person. But let's be clear: he has at least one great, unnerving talent where news management is concerned, which is a belligerent commitment to always being talked about.
B. I completely disagree. Trump calls them names, because his base hates these people, and has some just grievances. In the past, such people risked being hung by the mob; name-calling is a far superior alternative and not the end of democracy, as even The Economist implies.
C. There is a difference between fair criticism, impartially given; and a myopic criticism. His fans feel the criticism is unfair; which causes all criticism to be tuned out. That’s a warning sign to the media they’ve overstepped their bounds.
Nobody specifies implied contracts. They are implied.
In the case of the USA, from centuries of understanding that what marked the USA out as different to the European states from which people were dissenting was a commitment that power would answer to truth and constitutional protections to enable that.
(I'm a Brit but this is obvious to me)
> That’s a warning sign to the media they’ve overstepped their bounds.
If this is the way people are now thinking, then they deserve the Rollerball future they are building for themselves.
In that case, considering we fought a war to be free of your government, there’s an implied contract I must follow, that Brits get zero say on American politics. This implied contract is even older than modern journalism.
> A. Why wouldn’t they? By definition, they are right-wing.
You can be right-wing but still be in support of democracy and decency. That's the crucial issue to be had with Musk and Thiel - both for example are vocally opposed to the free press, with Elon having auto-reply poop emoji on press enquiries and Thiel outright bankrupting Gawker in revenge for outing him as gay via financing Hogan's lawsuit (not that I support that kind of tabloid journalism, but since it wasn't wrong it doesn't warrant tanking the entire medium).
There's many people who manage to be conservative or right-wing but still value the constitution and its principles and are willing to put country before party and people.
> both for example are vocally opposed to the free press
...a free press that is incredibly politically partisan, polarizing/radicalizing, spreads misinformation/disinformation, and doxxes people (e.g. NYT doxxing Scott Alexander, CNN doxxing a minor because they misunderstood his political beliefs and proceeded to spread misinformation about him) is the literal opposite of democracy or decency - supporting them erodes both of those things.
> with Elon having auto-reply poop emoji on press enquiries
Twitter having an auto-reply poop emoji on press inquiries is also irrelevant to, well...anything. No company is required to have a dedicated line to respond to press inquiries.
> but still value the constitution and its principles
Musk, at least, values free speech (I'm not going to defend Thiel, because that story is pretty bad for all parties involved), which is an actual right enumerated by the Constitution, far more than any of the media companies that he dislikes. Before he took over Twitter, Twitter actively colluded with the US Government to censor speech, which absolutely infringes on the spirit, if not the letter, of the first amendment.
As a Trump supporter/Republican voter I support the free press, I don't support whatever the fuck "journalism" these days (read: at least the past ~10 years, and likely longer than anyone realizes) is.
Whether it's blatant lies like the fine people hoax or the koi fish feeding, or more subtle manipulation like constantly and endlessly sensationlizing the commons into fear and rage, I detest all of it. Free press is good, but "journalism" as it stands is a cancer upon human society.
It isn't "from who" (well, "from whom") it is "from what".
They appear to be set to move more power to the executive branch from the other branches of government while at the same time undermining both independence and impartiality of the other branches.
Granted, this has been happening steadily over the last couple of decades. Even the SCOTUS has been part of this by expanding the powers of the president. But with appointments that are only loyal to a person (Trump) and not the nation, the US is entering into new territory.
The US is already rated a "flawed democracy". It hasn't been a "full democracy" for several years. The next stop down is "hybrid regime". If Trump et al do what they say they intend to do, this is what the US will become.
The scary bit is that we now have at least one generation, possibly two, where a huge number of people will shrug and go "so what?".
There are some who really want to replace annoying old democracy with an exciting new product named "Our Democracy". It's almost, but not quite, entirely unlike democracy.
I was pretty sure someone was going to say something like that.
Musk didn't, of course. Neither did any of the cabinet members win an election for that position. Neither did any of the cabinet members or advisors of any previous administration.
But Musk being appointed is a consequence of Trump's election, just like all cabinet members, advisors, and so on for every previous administration. You elect the person, you get their crew.
So people like Musk are "taking over" from other people who did not themselves win an election, but were put in positions of power by those who did win elections.
If you're going to argue that Musk wasn't elected (and he wasn't), then you also have to note that every person that is getting replaced by a Trump appointee is also someone who wasn't elected.
I may not like the people Trump is putting in position - they, um, don't seem like A players - but this particular criticism is unfair. Trump won a democratic election; he appoints his people just like all previous administrations did.
Except the person I responded to specifically said he was responding to the headline. If it really is the PayPal mafia taking over and not them subservient to them as a part of the Trump Administration, that would be bad.
Them being appointed to cabinet positions (or cabinet adjacent) is not in of itself bad / against democracy.
I can't remember ever seeing a private citizen so publicly a part of a presidential campaign, with the explicit expectation that a new government department with novel scope and power would be created for them to control.
The potential for this may have been latent all along, but it's incorrect or disingenuous to say that this is anything like the normal allocation of cabinet roles.
Do you think that's what I was getting at? That seems like an almost useless definition in this context. I can't see why I would use it or why you would suggest it.
I was assuming that I was speaking to more-or-less literate adults who can infer a reasonable meaning for words without me having to define them precisely.
In any case what I mean "exactly" is someone not a career politician or bureaucrat, nor with stated aspirations to become one.
It is not that unusual for a president to create a special committee to do X. The difference this time is that Musk is much more vocal and cocksure (or maybe just that he has his own media platform, so we get to see that he is vocal and cocksure).
But the problem these special committees always run into is that they have no actual constitutional authority to do anything. They can't pass legislation, they can't codify federal regulations. All they can do is make recommendations. (The president may give those recommendations the force of orders, but the president could have issued those same orders without the committee.)
So I don't think this that different from normal.
> a new government department with novel scope and power would be created for them to control.
But it's not. Despite the name, it's not actually a department - that requires congressional approval. It's just a committee. And the only power it has is issuing recommendations to actual departments. And those recommendations only have the power that Trump gives them - which also is nothing new.
Ok, sure, if you don't think this is different from usual then that's that I guess. I do think it's different but I don't find much value in trying to convince people of this today. There are more serious irregularities to worry about anyway.
> There are more serious irregularities to worry about anyway.
Absolutely. And I do worry. I worry about the people Trump is appointing. I worry about him destroying checks and balances. I worry about his repeated "joking" about a third term.
It's just that this particular thing doesn't seem that irregular to me... so far. Once details emerge, that could change.
I don’t know which type of corruption I prefer to be honest, Democratic corruption where Nancy Pelosi has $240m net worth on a salary of $233k or Donald Trump MAGA GOP corruption whose son in law received $2bn from Saudi for reasons unknown.
It seems not much changes but the names and the bank account balances.
You don´t have to whitewash one bad with some other bad.
The USA has lots of problems. Nancy would at least still respect the constitution and adheres to the democratic process. That still leaves you with a weak system, but you should prefer that over a group of people that won't respect the boundaries of the system.
That $240m is the combined net worth of her and her husband.
It's not all that much considering that he founded and has run a successful real estate and venture capital investment firm for over 40 years, and considering that they are both in their 80s which means they have had up to 60 years of investments.
If we follow PayPal's track then its all going to be rewritten in NodeJS. I'm okay with this, it would be the most fitting for government systems, everyone loves and hates JavaScript.
Given how much the US is a target for hackers, it’s probably a good thing that we stick to analog technology because it’s far harder to tamper with. Mailed ballots are a great example. The only thing that I really want fixed is tax returns but the lobbying is strong with that one.
I have no problem with successful people running our government. I'm dealing with people in my local government right now and they clearly are not in the PayPal Mafia. I think government was their fallback option and they are some of the dumbest people I've ever interacted with.
I have no problem with well-meaning, but dumb people in local government jobs.
I actually have quite a large problem with successful and intelligent people taking government jobs in bad faith for the expressed purpose of ruining it for their benefit.
>I have no problem with well-meaning, but dumb people in local government jobs.
Really? Surely you can see the issue when those "well-meaning, but dumb people" start instituting dumb policies that are counterproductive? Or did you mean to say that it was preferable to smart people with bad intentions?
The people instituting policies are not the same as the ones constructing and passing those policies. So the smartness of the policy is irrelevant. Obviously well-meaning is better than bad intentioned. Also the PayPal mafia is disturbingly bad-intentioned. And they have propaganda platforms that reach hundreds of millions of people.
So is this opinion or an editorial, I dont see any label. Also, why is it unsigned?
Anyhoo, not sure why PayPal is important here, I haven't seen anything proposed that will directly help PayPal the company, in fact, any crypto deregulation hurts PayPal.
