You can put your faith in your Magic 8 Ball and assume they're going to bounce back, which they may, but in the meantime $39 Billion -- with a "B" -- between two companies is a lot of fucking money. Trying to diminish that is not doing your part to keep our community healthy by blowing everything out of proportion and making literally everything as dramatic as possible.
You really do not understand the purpose of this subreddit, do you? We had our fun laughing at the Trumpers and their Parler ban, now we're having fun laughing at the idiots on the other side. In all of these threads we've also had fun laughing at you, because you're an overly literal, humorless prat. Isn't there a thread where you should be calling January 6 the "new 9/11" and begging for an updated Patriot Act somewhere?
It's speculative, my man. It's not like they had $50b in a bank account last week and now they have $39b less. Crypto is also down this week and guess what that will rebound (and then some) too
They do talk about that, but mostly they want to axe them for antitrust reasons. Rightoids want to break up big tech because it's a fundamental human right to say the gamer word.
Even I don't think Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, or any of the democrats are so stupid that they haven't realized that if this can be done to Orange Man, it can be done to them, as well. You don't get to sleep easy once you make people like Nanny, Chuck, and Mitch nervous.
They won't take that chance. Gird your loins for congressional drama as Commie Mommy and Friends start infighting over whether to punish the evil corporations or give them a big hug to own the cons.
It doesn't really matter what reason Congress come up with. These tech companies have almost completely cut off a major sitting politician from social media entirely. The fact that it's Trump is irrelevant in the grand scheme. Neither McConnell nor Pelosi would ever let these companies walk away with that power. I highly doubt anyone will touch Section 230. The Democrats would probably disguise it as legislation forcing these social media companies to comply with government-established moderation policies, but the intent will be the same: putting a leash on these companies. The events of the past year have demonstrated that the country's current legal and political framework is not equipped to deal with these issues in its current form.
U.S. politicians tend to show their spines when their own political position is at stake.
Also, what's this bullshit about "oligarchs"? There aren't any oligarchs in Congress. Pelosi has the highest net worth in Congress at $114 million. That would be a household budget for an actual oligarch.
Rofl, of course you would quote that ridiculous paper. I guess I'll explain it more clearly: I'm mocking your use of the word "oligarch" because in this situation, the tech billionaires would be one of the the closest things to an oligarch in the US that you can find. How exactly are the tech oligarchs going to cross themselves in this situation? Even if we're talking about non-tech oligarchs, then the very nature of them being an oligarch would necessitate them fighting the tech oligarchs when the latter overstepped. Otherwise, they wouldn't be oligarchs.
All that aside, you really do have such a basic-bitch understanding of political organizations. The U.S. is a hydra with 80% of its heads biting one another while the remaining 20% bite other countries.
I'm not surprised you conflate a single political science study (that supports your opinion) with reality.
when you start calling obvious reality 'ridiculous"
I called that paper ridiculous. Mostly because of how pseudo-intellectuals continue to throw it around without a single inkling of nuance. It can contain some valuable insights, but people like you squander any value that paper might provide by simply linking it to push your mediocre political narrative.
due to your own ideological views
And what ideological views would those be? People that disagree with you don't necessarily differ too much from you politically or ideologically. They might just think that you're a bloviating hack.
Look, you can call it ridiculous if you want, but reality is not subjective.
Reality isn't subjective. However, studies can be. Their methodology can be flawed, as can the conclusions drawn from them.
Let me put this in different words: you tried to slip your words in my mouth to make me look irrational and I'm calling you out on that pseudo-intellectual bullshit.
as someone with an actual education on the subject
Rofl, oh please.
I can tell you right now that claiming the wealthy do not control US policy is an indefensible position.
I can tell you right now that claiming "the wealthy control US policy" is a mediocre, unnuanced framing of the situation. And you're taking this mediocrity and trying to pass it off as insight. I can both agree and disagree with that statement, in many ways. This is usually a sign that the statement itself is so general that it is of little value on its own.
I'm fine with that. You've driven this comment chain on a complete tangent by honing in on a single offhand sentence of mine to distract from me pointing out that your comment before said sentence did not make sense.
Do the wealthy control US policy?
They're certainly one of the groups that do.
Are the wealthy a small group?
Not really. 1% of the US population is still 3.3 million people. As compared to a country like Russia where a circle of a couple hundred securocrats control a country with a population of 145 million. Relatively speaking
They're the primary group, and basically all US policy favors them.
What the fuck am I supposed to do with this?
We aren't talking about the 1% pal, and you know that.
Then who exactly are we talking about? Quarter of a percent? Still 750 thousand. Maybe you should provide us all with a list instead of pussy-footing around. "The wealthy" is actually a fairly diverse group of people with both complementary and competing aims. It's not just the Davos crowd.
You can also stop hiding behind ambiguities like "the wealthy" and "the oligarchs". This is what I was saying earlier: your talking points are so general that they don't produce any valuable discussion. It's like trying to describe differential equations using high school algebra.
You're always so insistent on castrating any sufficiently complex subject down to handful of cliches and useless dichotomies.
Accept the fact the US government serves the very rich.
Once again, what the fuck am I supposed to do with this statement? You're handing me the ramen-noodle equivalent of rhetoric.
We're talking about people worth hundreds of millions of dollars, not people making 400 grand a year.
We are? Because last I checked, you never actually had the balls to specify before. Anyway, ultra high-net-worth individuals still number in the tens of thousands.
I'm actually just saying the mega wealthy control America and all policy favors them.
Is this supposed to be you not castrating a sufficiently complex subject down to a cliche?
You tried to invoke Nancy and her being worth "only 100 million dollars" as evidence the US isn't an oligarchy
Rofl, no. That's not what I was doing at all. Let's go back, shall we. We were talking about Congress enacting regulation against the tech industry.
Tech has an absurd amount of political power and I don't see spineless oligarchs crossing them.
There aren't any oligarchs in Congress.
Lmao the entire US government is outright owned by oligarchs and works for them and them alone.
I guess I'll explain it more clearly: I'm mocking your use of the word "oligarch" because in this situation, the tech billionaires would be one of the the closest things to an oligarch in the US that you can find. How exactly are the tech oligarchs going to cross themselves in this situation? Even if we're talking about non-tech oligarchs, then the very nature of them being an oligarch would necessitate them fighting the tech oligarchs when the latter overstepped. Otherwise, they wouldn't be oligarchs.
Congress being composed of oligarchs, and oligarchs "owning" Congress are two separate things.
An American oligarchy would be multipolar and there are plenty of equally powerful factions that will take on tech. The idea that "the spineless oligarchs won't cross tech" doesn't make sense both because there are plenty of interest groups willing and capable of taking on tech, and because tech itself would be considered a part of this oligarchy.
You're seemingly making the claim that because oligarchs compete with each other that means no oligarchy exists.
I did two things in that comment: laughed at your refencing of the Princeton paper because it's been thrown around the internet so much by now, and pointed out that the previous comment did not make that much sense.
I really don't give a fuck about arguing whether or not the US is an oligarchy. I think trying to box something as infuriatingly byzantine as American power politics into a single word is little more than an exercise in navel gazing, one which almost never produces any meaningful insight. Even the Princeton paper itself only ever uses the word "oligarchy" once, and that's when referencing the concept of "civil oligarchy" put forth by another academic. The mere fact that this reference required an explicit qualifier in front of the word "oligarch" evidences just how far more nuanced this topic is than how you're presenting it.
Mostly, I dislike the talking point because it's clearly angling for shock value to draw attention to the one making it. However, all it ever does is inspire more nihilism and online navel-gazing. It's yet another example of how incredibly useless internet discussion is. More pedestrian, self-indulgent baying from the commentariat that lacks the nuance necessary to explore meaningful solutions for the cause it's supposed to be championing.
It's gotten attacked by finance bros and internet neoliberals and the such that desperately want to pretend a problem doesn't exist, but it's not a bad paper.
No, it's been criticized academically. "finance bros and internet neoliberals"? Christ, do you ever listen to yourself? Your entire perspective is so blatantly shaped by the fights you get into online.
Augh, fine, substitute "emotional reaction" for "shock value". The word "oligarch" is a politically loaded term that's commonly thrown out there by people who are more interested in hearing themselves talk.
I also didn't even suggest any solutions or attempt to talk about solutions, I don't even think feasible solutions exist.
ROFL, this is entirely my point! This is the useless nihilism I was talking about in my previous comment. You are so eternally online that you've locked yourself into this catastrophically negative perspective on the world that's based entirely on your consumption of online material.
Ok, but do you see how most of the criticism is just trying to deflect from the depressing conclusions
...no? It looks like these researchers genuinely disagreed with the methodology of the Princeton paper. How are you able to divine their intent through their research papers alone?
conclusions we can reach even without that paper
There are plenty of climate-science deniers who believe they've reached the correct solutions without the backing of academia. Just because it feels like you've reached the conclusion doesn't mean you really have.
Why the fuck is it politically loaded
Saudi Arabia is an oligarchy. Russia is an oligarchy. If the US is an oligarchy, people will make the emotional connection. The US has some major issues, but it is nowhere close to being as fucked as Saudi Arabia or Russia are. This is the kind of emotional connection that will just drive people to hopelessness and nihilism, even though the comparison is not factually accurate.
This is what I meant by it being a "loaded term".
There are possible solutions to this, but they simply aren't politically feasible for numerous reasons
And you know this how? I mean I could sit here and pontificate all the ways stuff will fail. I do that with a lot of things. However, it turns out that I'm wrong plenty of times because reality is so vastly far beyond my or any single person's capacity to mentally model it, and it turned out that I was leaning far too hard on specific observations, or discounting others, that could have led to a different, more optimistic conclusion if approached differently.
They're trying to explain away reality, is the issue.
How exactly are they trying to explain away reality if they found legitimate flaws in the methodology used in the Princeton paper? If these flaws influenced the conclusions of the paper, then on what basis are you making the claim that the US is an oligarchy?
Keep in mind, right now I am not attacking the claim that the US is an oligarchy. I'm questioning your heuristics. It really seems like you've already decided on the world you see, and are just seeking out confirmations of this decision.
That doesn't make the term "loaded."
If you're going to get hung up on the word "loaded" than just find another word. My point was that there is a lot of emotional weight behind the word and its connotations.
I mean it might be hard to model reality, but we can talk about how likely things are to change.
How valuable is that talk when the models on which its based are so spotty?
68 comments
57 jubbergun 2021-01-11
Facebook is also down...by $34 Billion. I probably should have led with that one. The only asset on the rise is Dramacoin.
48 [deleted] 2021-01-11
[deleted]
23 jubbergun 2021-01-11
Xir, this is a Wendy's.
8 [deleted] 2021-01-11
[deleted]
17 jubbergun 2021-01-11
You can put your faith in your Magic 8 Ball and assume they're going to bounce back, which they may, but in the meantime $39 Billion -- with a "B" -- between two companies is a lot of fucking money. Trying to diminish that is not doing your part to keep our community healthy by blowing everything out of proportion and making literally everything as dramatic as possible.
16 [deleted] 2021-01-11
[deleted]
24 jubbergun 2021-01-11
You really do not understand the purpose of this subreddit, do you? We had our fun laughing at the Trumpers and their Parler ban, now we're having fun laughing at the idiots on the other side. In all of these threads we've also had fun laughing at you, because you're an overly literal, humorless prat. Isn't there a thread where you should be calling January 6 the "new 9/11" and begging for an updated Patriot Act somewhere?
7 DuckSosu 2021-01-11
You say this, but it mostly just seems like this post is agenda coping. That's okay though.
6 [deleted] 2021-01-11
[deleted]
14 jubbergun 2021-01-11
Agenda posting? On my rrrr-Drama?
It's more likely than you think!
7 [deleted] 2021-01-11
[deleted]
7 WarSanchez 2021-01-11
Are you pizza? You're pizza aren't you?
4 JeanPeuplu 2021-01-11
I think he is.
4 The_Dramanomicon 2021-01-11
💯 %
4 JeanPeuplu 2021-01-11
You're agenda-sperging, it's different.
8 GeauxHouston22 2021-01-11
It's speculative, my man. It's not like they had $50b in a bank account last week and now they have $39b less. Crypto is also down this week and guess what that will rebound (and then some) too
Not in a rude way buy you seem stupid as hell
1 jubbergun 2021-01-11
Yes, I know we're talking about non-liquid assets. $5 Billion probably isn't a big hit with the numbers involved, but $34 Billion seems significant.
21 UpvoteIfYouDare 2021-01-11
Tech investors are fleeing Twitter and Facebook because the two companies are about to be buttfucked by Congress.
13 [deleted] 2021-01-11
[deleted]
20 DuckSosu 2021-01-11
Taking on big tech has been pretty bipartisan the past several years even if it is for different reasons.
11 [deleted] 2021-01-11
[deleted]
23 DuckSosu 2021-01-11
They do talk about that, but mostly they want to axe them for antitrust reasons. Rightoids want to break up big tech because it's a fundamental human right to say the gamer word.
8 Zozbot 2021-01-11
zoz
6 Zozbot 2021-01-11
zle
9 Zozbot 2021-01-11
zozzle
7 GeauxHouston22 2021-01-11
Fucking THIS ☝️☝️
Preach my brother
5 The_Dramanomicon 2021-01-11
Fuck yes keep going Daddy
8 jubbergun 2021-01-11
Even I don't think Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, or any of the democrats are so stupid that they haven't realized that if this can be done to Orange Man, it can be done to them, as well. You don't get to sleep easy once you make people like Nanny, Chuck, and Mitch nervous.
8 [deleted] 2021-01-11
[deleted]
3 kermit_was_wrong 2021-01-11
It'll never be done to a politician that isn't completely goddamn rslurred so... who cares.
3 jubbergun 2021-01-11
They won't take that chance. Gird your loins for congressional drama as Commie Mommy and Friends start infighting over whether to punish the evil corporations or give them a big hug to own the cons.
8 UpvoteIfYouDare 2021-01-11
Rofl, Democrats aren't stupid. No politician will ever let those two companies establish a precedent with what they've done over the past week.
4 [deleted] 2021-01-11
[deleted]
15 UpvoteIfYouDare 2021-01-11
Social media companies have never done anything nearly as ambitious as the current deplatforming. Nothing close.
3 [deleted] 2021-01-11
[deleted]
9 UpvoteIfYouDare 2021-01-11
They did so because of the events of Jan 6th.
It doesn't really matter what reason Congress come up with. These tech companies have almost completely cut off a major sitting politician from social media entirely. The fact that it's Trump is irrelevant in the grand scheme. Neither McConnell nor Pelosi would ever let these companies walk away with that power. I highly doubt anyone will touch Section 230. The Democrats would probably disguise it as legislation forcing these social media companies to comply with government-established moderation policies, but the intent will be the same: putting a leash on these companies. The events of the past year have demonstrated that the country's current legal and political framework is not equipped to deal with these issues in its current form.
7 [deleted] 2021-01-11
[deleted]
8 UpvoteIfYouDare 2021-01-11
U.S. politicians tend to show their spines when their own political position is at stake.
Also, what's this bullshit about "oligarchs"? There aren't any oligarchs in Congress. Pelosi has the highest net worth in Congress at $114 million. That would be a household budget for an actual oligarch.
3 [deleted] 2021-01-11
[deleted]
6 UpvoteIfYouDare 2021-01-11
Rofl, of course you would quote that ridiculous paper. I guess I'll explain it more clearly: I'm mocking your use of the word "oligarch" because in this situation, the tech billionaires would be one of the the closest things to an oligarch in the US that you can find. How exactly are the tech oligarchs going to cross themselves in this situation? Even if we're talking about non-tech oligarchs, then the very nature of them being an oligarch would necessitate them fighting the tech oligarchs when the latter overstepped. Otherwise, they wouldn't be oligarchs.
All that aside, you really do have such a basic-bitch understanding of political organizations. The U.S. is a hydra with 80% of its heads biting one another while the remaining 20% bite other countries.
3 [deleted] 2021-01-11
[deleted]
7 UpvoteIfYouDare 2021-01-11
I'm not surprised you conflate a single political science study (that supports your opinion) with reality.
I called that paper ridiculous. Mostly because of how pseudo-intellectuals continue to throw it around without a single inkling of nuance. It can contain some valuable insights, but people like you squander any value that paper might provide by simply linking it to push your mediocre political narrative.
And what ideological views would those be? People that disagree with you don't necessarily differ too much from you politically or ideologically. They might just think that you're a bloviating hack.
3 [deleted] 2021-01-11
[deleted]
6 UpvoteIfYouDare 2021-01-11
No, it's not satire:
Reality isn't subjective. However, studies can be. Their methodology can be flawed, as can the conclusions drawn from them.
Let me put this in different words: you tried to slip your words in my mouth to make me look irrational and I'm calling you out on that pseudo-intellectual bullshit.
Rofl, oh please.
I can tell you right now that claiming "the wealthy control US policy" is a mediocre, unnuanced framing of the situation. And you're taking this mediocrity and trying to pass it off as insight. I can both agree and disagree with that statement, in many ways. This is usually a sign that the statement itself is so general that it is of little value on its own.
2 [deleted] 2021-01-11
[deleted]
6 UpvoteIfYouDare 2021-01-11
I'm fine with that. You've driven this comment chain on a complete tangent by honing in on a single offhand sentence of mine to distract from me pointing out that your comment before said sentence did not make sense.
They're certainly one of the groups that do.
Not really. 1% of the US population is still 3.3 million people. As compared to a country like Russia where a circle of a couple hundred securocrats control a country with a population of 145 million. Relatively speaking
3 [deleted] 2021-01-11
[deleted]
6 UpvoteIfYouDare 2021-01-11
What the fuck am I supposed to do with this?
Then who exactly are we talking about? Quarter of a percent? Still 750 thousand. Maybe you should provide us all with a list instead of pussy-footing around. "The wealthy" is actually a fairly diverse group of people with both complementary and competing aims. It's not just the Davos crowd.
You can also stop hiding behind ambiguities like "the wealthy" and "the oligarchs". This is what I was saying earlier: your talking points are so general that they don't produce any valuable discussion. It's like trying to describe differential equations using high school algebra.
You're always so insistent on castrating any sufficiently complex subject down to handful of cliches and useless dichotomies.
1 [deleted] 2021-01-11
[deleted]
6 UpvoteIfYouDare 2021-01-11
Once again, what the fuck am I supposed to do with this statement? You're handing me the ramen-noodle equivalent of rhetoric.
We are? Because last I checked, you never actually had the balls to specify before. Anyway, ultra high-net-worth individuals still number in the tens of thousands.
Is this supposed to be you not castrating a sufficiently complex subject down to a cliche?
Rofl, no. That's not what I was doing at all. Let's go back, shall we. We were talking about Congress enacting regulation against the tech industry.
Congress being composed of oligarchs, and oligarchs "owning" Congress are two separate things.
An American oligarchy would be multipolar and there are plenty of equally powerful factions that will take on tech. The idea that "the spineless oligarchs won't cross tech" doesn't make sense both because there are plenty of interest groups willing and capable of taking on tech, and because tech itself would be considered a part of this oligarchy.
-1 [deleted] 2021-01-11
[deleted]
6 UpvoteIfYouDare 2021-01-11
I did two things in that comment: laughed at your refencing of the Princeton paper because it's been thrown around the internet so much by now, and pointed out that the previous comment did not make that much sense.
I really don't give a fuck about arguing whether or not the US is an oligarchy. I think trying to box something as infuriatingly byzantine as American power politics into a single word is little more than an exercise in navel gazing, one which almost never produces any meaningful insight. Even the Princeton paper itself only ever uses the word "oligarchy" once, and that's when referencing the concept of "civil oligarchy" put forth by another academic. The mere fact that this reference required an explicit qualifier in front of the word "oligarch" evidences just how far more nuanced this topic is than how you're presenting it.
Mostly, I dislike the talking point because it's clearly angling for shock value to draw attention to the one making it. However, all it ever does is inspire more nihilism and online navel-gazing. It's yet another example of how incredibly useless internet discussion is. More pedestrian, self-indulgent baying from the commentariat that lacks the nuance necessary to explore meaningful solutions for the cause it's supposed to be championing.
0 [deleted] 2021-01-11
[deleted]
4 UpvoteIfYouDare 2021-01-11
No, it's been criticized academically. "finance bros and internet neoliberals"? Christ, do you ever listen to yourself? Your entire perspective is so blatantly shaped by the fights you get into online.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261379411000291
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/abs/relative-policy-support-and-coincidental-representation/BBBD524FFD16C482DCC1E86AD8A58C5B
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053168015608896
Augh, fine, substitute "emotional reaction" for "shock value". The word "oligarch" is a politically loaded term that's commonly thrown out there by people who are more interested in hearing themselves talk.
ROFL, this is entirely my point! This is the useless nihilism I was talking about in my previous comment. You are so eternally online that you've locked yourself into this catastrophically negative perspective on the world that's based entirely on your consumption of online material.
0 [deleted] 2021-01-11
[deleted]
3 UpvoteIfYouDare 2021-01-11
...no? It looks like these researchers genuinely disagreed with the methodology of the Princeton paper. How are you able to divine their intent through their research papers alone?
There are plenty of climate-science deniers who believe they've reached the correct solutions without the backing of academia. Just because it feels like you've reached the conclusion doesn't mean you really have.
Saudi Arabia is an oligarchy. Russia is an oligarchy. If the US is an oligarchy, people will make the emotional connection. The US has some major issues, but it is nowhere close to being as fucked as Saudi Arabia or Russia are. This is the kind of emotional connection that will just drive people to hopelessness and nihilism, even though the comparison is not factually accurate.
This is what I meant by it being a "loaded term".
And you know this how? I mean I could sit here and pontificate all the ways stuff will fail. I do that with a lot of things. However, it turns out that I'm wrong plenty of times because reality is so vastly far beyond my or any single person's capacity to mentally model it, and it turned out that I was leaning far too hard on specific observations, or discounting others, that could have led to a different, more optimistic conclusion if approached differently.
1 [deleted] 2021-01-11
[deleted]
4 UpvoteIfYouDare 2021-01-11
How exactly are they trying to explain away reality if they found legitimate flaws in the methodology used in the Princeton paper? If these flaws influenced the conclusions of the paper, then on what basis are you making the claim that the US is an oligarchy?
Keep in mind, right now I am not attacking the claim that the US is an oligarchy. I'm questioning your heuristics. It really seems like you've already decided on the world you see, and are just seeking out confirmations of this decision.
If you're going to get hung up on the word "loaded" than just find another word. My point was that there is a lot of emotional weight behind the word and its connotations.
How valuable is that talk when the models on which its based are so spotty?
Francis Fukuyama thought the same in 1992.
6 seenten 2021-01-11
True, the tech investing market is a fucking mess and full of WSB-types.
9 HodorTheDoorHolder__ 2021-01-11
It's worth at least $41 billion to be on the good side of the Democrats
2 jubbergun 2021-01-11
Maybe, but don't think Nanny and Chuck aren't eyeing these guys sideways wondering if the dogs will be set loose on them one day.
2 -M-o-X- 2021-01-11
GOOD FUCK EM
13 allendrio 2021-01-11
conservative boomers absolutely love living their lives on social media so it makes sense.
8 tenebrous_cloud 2021-01-11
More like dad was the only thing interesting on twitter. Nobody actually wants to read tranarcho-communist thoughts on anything.
3 kermit_was_wrong 2021-01-11
I'm sure they're terrified lmao.
2 lol_te_gusto 2021-01-11
Wow everyone wins!
1 DrunkenRecidivist 2021-01-11
Buy DDY