Tech oligarchs have turned against the system that made them

209 pointsposted 7 months ago
by colinprince
(liberalcurrents.com)

125 Comments

duxup

7 months ago

The powerful tend to like the idea of less democratic governments / rigging the game (business) so they win. It's easy, they're not interested in competing in a market (ideas or business) if they can simply cuddle up to a despot and easily get theirs. So we see many line up to take their turn to bend the knee.

There's a weird idea among those on the right in the US where they see business people as somehow having some good insights as far business overall (the market) for the country. But really many of those who gain power are very much not interested in competing / open markets / competition, quite the opposite. They got theirs and for many the inclination is to close the door (market) behind them.

potato3732842

7 months ago

You're not thinking general enough.

Once merit no longer becomes an effective moat individuals, organizations and entities turn to violence. In the modern world this means cozying up to government who has the monopoly on violence and getting competition regulated away if not in full then at least fractionally with barriers to entry.

I would be unsurprised if over the next 40yr the software industry does the same thing by adopting professional organizations that get themselves written into law the way various other professions have.

OldfieldFund

7 months ago

I felt that it was really easy to get consumed by money/power when I started making serious income. To feel that I'm better than other people.

And I mean that in the context of running my own company, which meant I could make very unethical decisions if I wanted to. (financial services -- the easiest niche to bend the rules just a little bit)

The temptation was strong, at least in my case.

It took me some time to turn around, understand when enough is enough, and what is actually important in life. Therapy helped.

I think that the old saying, albeit banal, rings true: "all power corrupts. and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

_DeadFred_

7 months ago

When I was rich and on top of the world I remember running around in my boat full of people partying blasting this song and taking the chorus seriously. Man, it felt good. It felt so so good. Can't believe it was so long ago and a different life.

'We are the people that rule the world' - Empire of the Sun https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rm0gwqCR_0

another_twist

7 months ago

I feel he's a poster child of what happens when you consume too much social media. Blaming immigration for cutting off access to corporate america for Americans ? I really want to know what the numbers are and what they would be if immigration is completely stopped. Hopefully someone will come up with a simulation for this sort of thing so we can put the debate to rest. Its weird that this data-driven guy have no actual data to back up his claim.

xhkkffbf

7 months ago

Do your own research. Look at the CEOs throughout tech. It's hard to find CEOs with parents who were born in the United States. Many of the CEOs themselves were born overseas and they came to America either as children of grad students or as grad students themselves.

This is just an extension of the H1B or immigration debate. Bringing smart people to America may be nice for society, but it's tough for the natives who must compete against them. Moreover, many of the nativeborn don't have the same opportunities overseas. Many other countries are locked up very tightly.

another_twist

7 months ago

I really do sympathize with American students who must compete at a global level while sustaining some of the highest tuition burdens in the world. Having said that, the argument that the founders are from abroad hence the natives suffer is false dichotomy. If anything it creates more jobs here and deprives other areas of talent since the US is welcoming for businesses. But if you want to do RnD in America, you almost always have to hire locally. The only pathway for immigrants getting jobs here is to get a degree in the US. These immigrants pay full fees to universities which in turn (potentially) subsidizes education for US students. I have to really stretch it to say that European countries like France / Germany and the UK are as locked up as the US. Almost no other country has stricter immigration than the US. Tbf if the UK (eg) would fix some of their regulatory regimes, the only reason for good entrepreneurs from the UK to come to the US would be to get market share.

_DeadFred_

7 months ago

Non-American born parents sacrifice for their kids. Put every penny into their children's future, pick up a second job if they have to. Let their adult kids live at home, not kick them out. And when those kids succeed, they often give back building on the help they were given. Success compounds when you're part of a team.

My dad threw me out at 18. Spent my whole childhood bragging about how he couldn't wait for that day. Why? Because he was a hippie boomer and that's what he did at 18 (though his version of 'independence' came with parents who helped him buy multiple houses). He cut his own parents out of our lives, called it freedom, making it so I couldn't turn to them for help like he had. Not for money. Not even for emotional support.

Maybe kicking your kids out at 18 and making them do it all alone is a bad cultural habit. Or maybe the immigrant families who stick together/support each other are the problem.

bigbadfeline

7 months ago

I's so sorry for you, but you're an atypical case. The number of kids living with their parents have been increasing for the last decade or two, and it's the kids who complain that they can't get their beloved independence.

I don't think xhkkffbf understands the problem well enough but gaslighting him with tearful stories isn't the proper approach here.

On the topic - businesses don't like to compete but they like to have people compete for their jobs. Immigration is just one of the ways to skew the labor market in that direction. Monopolization is another - and growing rapidly.

Remote work is yet another skew factor, without a systemic overhaul, less visas will result in more remote work offshore.

xhkkffbf > Moreover, many of the nativeborn don't have the same opportunities overseas. Many other countries are locked up very tightly.

A heartbreaking talking point but actually irrelevant, foreign regulations play a minuscule role here - the difference in standards of living and local prices make it impossible for Americans to earn enough abroad, remotely or not. Again, it's a systemic issue, entirely local to the US.

conception

7 months ago

There’s a difference between living with your parents because it’s the norm culturally and you’re saving up for whatever and living with your parents because it’s impossible to afford living on your own.

_DeadFred_

7 months ago

I thought we were talking about CURRENT CEOs. My story was the norm for my generation with boomer parents, not atypical, and you know...the generation that typically make up CEOs currently.

Wasn't meant to be gaslighting but instead my observation from growing up in the bay area and seeing mine and my friends trajectories. We anglos has a lot handed to us, a lot. But the lack of support lead to a lot of setbacks/starting over that others more quickly overcame because of family/support networks, allowing them to ultimately rise higher. Fun fact, if you restart mid race, you oftentimes lose the race. That's not a sob story, just how it goes.

sershe

7 months ago

Natives start with every advantage that immigrants don't have, so it sounds like the time for the worlds tiniest violin.

I think the USA is one of, if not the most meritocratic major societies in the world and throughout history (massive immigration despite relatively weak welfare state seems to indicate many with experience of other countries agree).

The unsaid implication is that non immigrant American poor is one of the most meritless major demographics to have ever existed. I mean look at some pictures from a Trump rally (or a left wing equivalent). Are these people prevented by immigrant competition from getting tech jobs? I am surprised they manage to keep breathing in and out without detailed instructions and constant supervision.

USG should save money by paying other countries to take these guys instead.

jimmydoe

7 months ago

I doubt people like Marc andreessen has much stable long term core beliefs, they are just opportunist who also occasionally feel the need to justify their opportunistic behavior.

amazingman

7 months ago

I still can't figure out if he was always a charlatan or something happened that turned him into one.

potamic

7 months ago

I've come to believe that people rarely change through their life. I can't think of many people neither in personal nor in public life, where I've seen a fundamental change in value system. But people are really good at putting up a persona that they want others to see. It takes a long time to really understand someone and who they really are.

nielsbot

7 months ago

I theorize people who “make it” start circulating in super rich social circles where people believe whatever racist idiocy he’s spouting. They certainly no longer spend time with anyone living an average lifestyle.

em500

7 months ago

How could they? People living an average lifestyle need to work full time, transport the kids around, cook, do their household chores, file their taxes, queue everywhere. That's why people who no longer need to work for living mostly spend time with others who no longer need to work for living.

potato3732842

7 months ago

Likewise, the blue collar classes rightfully ridicule the crap out of the HN class for sticking their dick in all sorts of issues that don't even deem worth the time of day.

grafmax

7 months ago

Billionaires have so much power that they 1) start asking themselves questions like “how can I change society?” and 2) are surrounded by sycophants waiting for crumbs. Besides that they are free to effectively decide the fates of others without their own skin in the game - think Alex Karp vs the immigrants being rounded up in concentration camps. What we have is a potent cocktail that engenders anti-human policies with no brakes whatsoever.

Loughla

7 months ago

I think the biggest problem for those that make it is being surrounded by people who just say yes, and not realizing when that transition happens. If you come from middle- to upper-middle-class and become 1% of the 1%, this switch has to be subtle, I would imagine.

When you're worth billions, it's easy to see how correct you were about business (or just assume you were correct, whether it was luck, inheritance, or whatever). And weirdly, the people in your life tend to agree with you about everything else outside of business (because they want access to that billionaire lifestyle, or are also so disconnected from average life that they naturally share your views already). You never hear a dissenting opinion, unless it's from some weirdo on the internet who is plainly just jealous of your wealth.

Jesters need to be a thing again. Somebody that follows around the wealthy and powerful and just absolutely blasts their bullshit every chance they get. Someone to say 'no' when all of the hangers-on say nothing but 'yes'.

lazzlazzlazz

7 months ago

The honest truth is that you (like many; I say this blamelessly) have been swept left, whereas Marc has not. He has remained utterly loyal to technological progress, which is under assault right now politically.

Ask yourself honestly if you are still as optimistic about technology and the intellectual freedom (and chaos, "unfettered conversations") as you may have been in the past. I have asked many friends this and the answer is "no".

austinjp

7 months ago

Can you define some terms? Without unambiguous definition this isn't very clear.

What is "technological progress"? And how does right-leaning politics support it?

What do you mean by "unfettered conversations"?

jeisc

7 months ago

he has been talking too much to AI and has become contaminated by AI and sycophants real and artificial

tropicalfruit

7 months ago

i think he's just angry because all the money in the world cant fix an egg-shaped head

user

7 months ago

[deleted]

jasonthorsness

7 months ago

I'm surprised he lumped in MIT; I thought they were more score/grade-based in their admissions which I did not expect Marc to oppose.

pseudo0

7 months ago

MIT experimented with going test-optional for a couple years, that might be what he was referring to? They have since reinstated their SAT/ACT requirement.

ixtli

7 months ago

> The communist millennials who entered the workforce in the 2010s sought to destroy every institution they touched

its so fulfilling to know someone as rich and powerful as Andreessen has acknowledged my hard work :)

GuinansEyebrows

7 months ago

he believes in us more than we do!

ixtli

7 months ago

i always find myself wishing we were as powerful as the fascist believes us to be

meowface

7 months ago

I am a turbolib who hates Andreessen but I think the progressive media outlets have been somewhat misinterpreting his leaked messages there. I didn't read it as racist Trumpist white nationalist rhetoric but as specific commentary about race-based preferences in admissions combined with immigration.

GuinansEyebrows

7 months ago

perhaps a distinction, but without a difference.

mindslight

7 months ago

There was a difference, when such criticism could mean something else besides supporting a fascist movement with kidnap gangs, concentration camps, and destruction of longstanding American institutions. DEI was indeed tedious and suffocating, but actual fascism red in tooth and claw is far far worse.

meowface

7 months ago

Yeah, I am not at all defending Trump or his supporters. I just think it's important to distinguish taking issue with universities or employers having explicit racial preference in admissions or hiring (which many liberals take issue with) vs. opposing or hating immigration or non-whites. Trumpism is almost exclusively the latter two.

Andreessen wrote:

>"The combination of DEI and immigration is politically lethal. When these two forms of discrimination combine, as they have for the last 60 years and on hyperdrive for the last decade, they systematically cut most of the children of the Trump voter base out of any realistic prospect of access to higher education and corporate America."

I am not necessarily accepting the premise, but this statement doesn't seem racist in itself, to me.

mindslight

7 months ago

I did this steelmanning for decades. Teased out the nuance. Assumed people were coming from the best intent, even if they expressed themselves ham-fistedly. Rolled my eyes at friends reflexively shoehorning everything into "racism". Hated the refrain of "dog whistle" rather than addressing the actual point. And so on.

At the point when we've got an overtly fascist administration that is ineffective at doing anything but making a show of putting some powerless brown people in concentration camps, yet is still being cheered by a large number of people? I'm coming around to the idea that the underlying hidden variable is really just racism. So I'm done engaging with the dog whistles as rational points, at least until the pendulum starts swinging back. I'm certainly not going to be a useful idiot enabling this shit.

(I'm even left wondering if the reactionaries' constant refrain of "California [delenda est]" isn't just a straight up invitation to enter the racism closet. I spent time in LA. The place is a nuthouse. But when I respond to the "California..." narrative with actual sympathetic criticism it's still just crickets like I'm not understanding something)

judahmeek

7 months ago

> I didn't read it as racist Trumpist white nationalist rhetoric but as specific commentary about race-based preferences in admissions combined with immigration.

When racist Trumpist white nationalist rhetoric gets distilled into desired policy, what else is there besides changes to race-based preferences in admissions & changes to immigration?

It seems like Andreessen supports Trump's entire racial platform, just not the rhetoric that Trump's MAGA base uses.

SpicyLemonZest

7 months ago

I think you're distilling too much if you lose the distinction between the people who don't want race-conscious admissions and the people who want to repeal the Civil Rights Act, even if the second group isn't getting their way.

pstuart

7 months ago

DEI has been successfully reframed by the Right as being Affirmative Action v2, when it's really about having "equal opportunity" to compete for job opportunities (e.g., not just handing out jobs to friends of friends).

tl;dr -- DEI is actually about meritocracy.

meowface

7 months ago

I have always been a progressive and a social justice advocate, but in my opinion taking race into consideration in hiring or admissions decisions simply isn't fair or ethical, no matter the intention or the end result.

mixmastamyk

7 months ago

Did you see these pieces?

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/professor-...

https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2024/02/15/carole-hooven-wh...

As someone who supported EOE policies, university DEI went way too far in some places. Unfortunately it took someone like Trump to end that. Dems didn’t seem to be aware or were afraid to rock the boat.

pstuart

7 months ago

There's plenty of cases where it was mishandled (along with mishandling plenty of other things).

This is a classic playbook of taking egregious missteps on handling policy and blaming the policy itself instead of the administrative failure.

For example, we want "drug free" schools, right? So the "easiest" thing to do is establish zero tolerance rules that lead to situations like this:

https://www.aclu.org/news/smart-justice/strip-search-13-year...

Does that mean we no longer want "drug free" schools?

mixmastamyk

7 months ago

I was careful with my claims and there are many more examples. Also there are valid philosophical reasons to disagree with such policies.

You vastly downplay what happened in those instances as “mishandling.” They read straight out of a dystopian novel.

If real people can’t be trusted to administer policy of promoting bias without becoming biased, then the policy must be abolished. (Not surprisingly.)

pstuart

7 months ago

The last thing I want to do is defend university bureaucrats.

The policies themselves should be the focal point of discussion, i.e., if there's merit to be had and how to deliver on that without making things worse.

Would you also call the strip-search incident I cited as dystopian? I would. I am stridently against The War on Drugs, but I also think keeping drugs out of schools is a good thing.

Using your approach the answer would be to not have any school policies about drugs on campus.

mixmastamyk

7 months ago

Yes—though when dystopian policy intrudes into hiring committees and "pledges of alliance," I feel it goes a step beyond mere bad policy.

pstuart

7 months ago

So then you're not opposed to the concept of DEI as I've tried to clarify? That is, to ensure opportunities are made public and possible to all who might qualify, even if they're not in the inner circle of those who are dispensing with said opportunities?

You know where you can find literal pledges of alliance these days? The Federal government, where they're doing loyalty checks to The King. Dystopian enough?

mixmastamyk

7 months ago

Yes, why I mentioned EOE, which felt like the right amount of assertiveness and not zealotry.

One of the things I check for in job postings is they include age in their non-discrimination list. Since it will apply to everyone sooner or later.

RamblingCTO

7 months ago

Him, Thiel, Musk, Yarvin and all the yes men (e/acc for example) can piss right off. It's just about power based on the idea that they deserve success and power because they are better than anyone else. That there was no random chance. That they have insights no one else has, that they are infallible. "Paperbelt on fire" is a good example of this thinking ("their education sucks, ours is better"). Absolutely not capable of self-critique these people (totally not musk shadow banning people who criticize him). Destroying democracy and our world because they have the self regulation of a ten year old. Everyone of those people really should go to therapy to learn that making money and having power is not the path towards a good life in any way. And it's sad to see people never get out of this groove their entire lives, no matter the money.

I'm wondering if the "old silicon valley" was also just about power and never about making the world a better place. Was it all just a bunch of narcissists with domination fantasies or did anyone actually care at all?

PS: doesn't help that the opposition is a bunch of cat girl avatars with funny pronouns.

lazzlazzlazz

7 months ago

I have personally found Marc's takes refreshing and vital. HN, like many sites, has become more cynical and even self-loathing. There are so many in here who hate tech and even progress and growth.

Marc's descriptions in the link are validated even just by the comments here. It's incredible.

korse

7 months ago

>There are so many in here who hate tech and even progress and growth.

I think you are confusing skeptics of currently fashionable development roadmaps for popular technology with luddites.

As an example, I am a strong proponent of efforts to establish a multi-planetary society and at the same time believe that the future of humanity should have as many humans 'in the loop' as possible. This makes the technology underlying self-driving vehicles beneficial but the push to automate everyday human transport anathema. Other examples are collaborative robotics versus black-box manufacturing technology or global/system wide communications networks. Collaborative robotics allow for advanced manufacturing but can allow humans to retain their mastery of a craft and keep a hand in the process, enhancing rather than replacing. Communication networks, indispensable as they are, need not be a vehicle for exploiting weaknesses in the human psyche to hijack the human experience.

Perhaps I speak only for myself but I think there are quite a few members of this forum who hold similar opinions despite having deep knowledge of the subject matter and appreciating the technology at the core of the 'cutting edge'.

igor47

7 months ago

Just curious -- which takes? That immigrants are destroying life for people from Wisconsin? That universities are anti progress and should pay a price? That the Trump administration is the only way to save progress and growth in America? Am I just misunderstanding what Marc is saying, and these are not his views at all?

alxjrvs

7 months ago

I also wonder if it includes the part where mark paraphrases the 14 words.

We're at the "White nationalists have some good points" stage of discourse.

user

7 months ago

[deleted]

justinclift

7 months ago

> That universities are anti progress

Would it be that some are, and some aren't?

throw4847285

7 months ago

Would it be that the concept of anti-progress is incoherent, and simply a thought terminating cliche?

rhelz

7 months ago

Domo Aregato, Mr. Roboto.

narrator

7 months ago

Marc decided to support Trump when the Biden admin told him that he shouldn't start AI companies because they were committed to an oligarchy of AI companies and they would classify math if they had to. Now the left is turning all their propaganda firepower on him.

geegee3

7 months ago

Thanks for posting what I had in mind.

ENGNR

7 months ago

I’m so grateful that hacker news isn’t swayed too much politically - people in general are willing to consider any novel argument on its merits in search of deeper understanding. As opposed to say Reddit where if you don’t agree with the hivemind it’s instant downvotes.

This article has aged well: https://paulgraham.com/say.html

nielsbot

7 months ago

> the combination of DEI and immigration two forms of discrimination that systematically cut most of the children of the Trump voter base out of any realistic prospect of access to higher education and corporate America.

What a racist idiot he is. The main problem is the cost of college not “DEI”. He’s not even using the term correctly.

ZeroGravitas

7 months ago

DEI now means "black"/"black person"/"black people" in many contexts, including this one.

The comedian Bill Burr made some jokes about the Mangione situation and people on Twitter said it was because of his DEI wife.

zozbot234

7 months ago

It's not even the cost of college per se, but the cost of credentialing at elite colleges. Everything else that people associate with college ed (not least the educational resources themselves, especially with progress in LLM's) is dirt cheap and often free.

BobaFloutist

7 months ago

Also state schools are (well, were) heavily subsidized for lower income families. God forbid you get paid to attend a top 50 public university instead of mortgaging your future for a top 10 private school.

user

7 months ago

[deleted]

bodiekane

7 months ago

Maybe other people's usage of the term is just different than yours without either being "correct".

For at least half of America, "DEI" means "giving preferential treatment to some individuals based on their race, sexuality or gender".

That might be a good thing (at a societal level it balances historical racism, or it counteracts unconscious bias or other contemporary inequalities) or that might be a bad thing (it's unfair to the individuals, it harms trust in the system and undermines meritocracy, visible attributes are a weak proxy to actual privilege) but that doesn't mean using the term the same way as hundreds of millions of other speakers is incorrect.

msie

7 months ago

So sad, all the money in the world and somehow he believes he's a victim.

taylodl

7 months ago

What’s truly sad isn’t that he feels victimized - it’s that he’s using his wealth and influence to settle personal scores. That’s not leadership; it’s grievance-fueled ego. It’s moral immaturity dressed in power.

ixtli

7 months ago

i find that reactionaries of all kinds put a lot of work into the mental gymanastics required to argue that somehow they are the real victims of injustice and it usually boils down to "people wont let me do whatever i want and also love me"

marcuskane2

7 months ago

As a thought experiment to check your own biases, how do you feel about people like Colin Kaepernick speaking out about police abuses and racism in the justice system?

There are people who made roughly the same argument you're making here- since this individual became rich and famous within the current system, they shouldn't criticize the flaws in the system that have victimized others who they empathize with.

GuinansEyebrows

7 months ago

by trying to make this comparison, you mask the other huge, important difference between these examples: speaking out against police abuse and racism in the justice system is a just and moral act, and the things andreeson says are very bad and very stupid. the nerd-sniping semantic argument is so boring.

mindslight

7 months ago

They are not the same argument. Andreesen made his wealth because of the intended effects of the system, and rather than merely looking to reform it he's looking to wholesale tear it down as it is now holding him back from getting even more wealth. Kaepernick did not make his wealth from the failings of the justice system, and that system isn't really standing in his way today.

Furthermore, reform and wholesale destruction are very different things and anybody still supporting Trump on some notion that any of this is actually about fixing DEI/immigration/budget/regulation needs to get their head screwed on straight, and quick.

ghc

7 months ago

I recently listened to a Ben Horowitz interview (https://muckrack.com/podcast/a16z-podcast-podcast/episodes/9...) and it's hard not to see these people as cowards.

They parrot QAnon conspiracy theories and known Russian propaganda originated on RT, call consumer protections fascism (!!!), and allude to actual ideas from fascism as being "interesting."

Just listen to that interview to see how morally corrupt they've become.

chermi

7 months ago

Did you actually read into the consumer protection stuff he's talking about? IIRC, he's talking about the consumer finance protection bureau "debanking" people for crypto stuff without them actually breaking any laws and without CFPB citing any laws/making the law clear. His contention was that it was extralegal, and it sounded pretty shitty to me.

ghc

7 months ago

Here's a good article: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/10/technology/crypto-debanki...

Treating crypto as a risky and destabilizing security (like subprime mortgages) is a valid reaction to what happened during the SVB and FTX implosions. Accusing Elizabeth Warren and the Biden administration of being actual fascists over it is absolutely wild.

Similarly, saying "everyone knows" Biden was not the actual president, USAID was a terrorist funding organization, and that we can't keep track of money without blockchain....these all originate in QAnon circles or Russian state media.

To quote CS Lewis' novel, "That Hideous Strength", on why this is so dangerous:

> “Why you fool, it's the educated reader who CAN be gulled. All our difficulty comes with the others. When did you meet a workman who believes the papers? He takes it for granted that they're all propaganda and skips the leading articles. He buys his paper for the football results and the little paragraphs about girls falling out of windows and corpses found in Mayfair flats. He is our problem. We have to recondition him. But the educated public, the people who read the high-brow weeklies, don't need reconditioning. They're all right already. They'll believe anything.”

chermi

7 months ago

You ignored the entire issue. It was extralegal. If they wanted to do something about it, they should make clear laws and enforce them.

And to add, I would say what you're doing is basically trying to forbid thought and discussion about what USAID has done or the Biden situation by tying it to something so reprehensible no one will want to associate with it. I don't like that. I want to be able to question USAID and what my president is doing. Stick to rebutting the actual ideas, it's a much healthier way to engage.

Edit-- I agree fascist label is wild, but can we admit there might be some hmm, fairly recent precedence for wild and often offensive use of terms like fascist and Nazi?

ghc

7 months ago

> You ignored the entire issue. It was extralegal. If they wanted to do something about it, they should make clear laws and enforce them.

That's actually not true. The SEC & FDIC have broad authority to issue recommendations regarding risk. There are clear laws on the books dating back to the 1930s. The only people claiming it's "extralegal" have financial interests in crypto. Here: https://www.fdic.gov/news/inactive-financial-institution-let... . They issue the same kinds of advisories for foreign currencies, subprime assets, penny stocks, etc.

That authority is no different than the authority granted to the FDA, FTC, etc. and it's got decades of case law behind it.

> I don't like that. I want to be able to question USAID and what my president is doing.

What they're doing is actually the opposite of what you say. If you listen to what Horowitz is saying, he's stating these "theories" as if they're well-known facts, preemptively shutting down questioning about his motives or the veracity of his sources.

Saying things like "Everybody now knows Biden was not actually the president" is not questioning, it's a classic propaganda tactic called "Card Stacking", where someone trusted or with authority presents speculation or half truths as fact, ignoring contradictory evidence or uncertainty to manipulate public opinion.

The USAID statements are another example: USAID supplies & money may have been used by terrorists, against the anti-terrorism provisions written into its charter. The mission of USAID, however, was to stop terrorism from springing up in the first place by reducing food insecurity in unstable places. You know what else directly funds terrorism? Cryptocurrency (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-disrupts-h...). But you don't hear Horowitz say we should ban Crypto over it. He's using half truths to promote his financial interests and legitimize his support for those in power who promote these interests.

Yet another example is how he promotes blockchain for USG spending, as if the USG doesn't have extremely detailed records of how money moves and is spent. Here's an article about the "lost" $400B: https://apnews.com/article/pandemic-fraud-waste-billions-sma...

Key points: Much of the waste is fraud by organizations requesting relief money. The gov't knows who got the money and is prosecuting over 1000 people over it. The waste happened because of lax oversight by the first Trump administration during campaign season, not during the Biden administration as implied by Horowitz. Finally, it was probably not due to nefarious intentions (despite campaign season), but due to the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic.

YseGuy74000

7 months ago

Did you talk to him? He Seems to think the Cause is systemic Demkemia

k310

7 months ago

I vividly recall a Christmas message from him, which I can't find in the archives, "Merry Fucking Christmas" having to do with his work on Mosaic browser and the lack of adulation shown him for having done so.

"Privilege," whether through one's birth, skin color, past achievements and so on, when it turns to exceptionalism, is the ruination of society here and in the world.

Truly good people use their gifts and achievements to lift others up.

Empty shells seek to cut others down.

"Libertarianism" seems nowadays to mean complete freedom for me, and not for you.

graphic (postimages.org)

https://i.postimg.cc/YqFrtzXg/Four-Libertarian-Freedoms-1.jp...

neuralkoi

7 months ago

I wonder if a lot of these individuals who try incredibly hard to get more attention and "adulation" at the expense of others or feel under-appreciated just weren't loved very much as children or given much attention. I wonder how much of their behavior comes from a place of insecurity--not feeling that they are enough. Of course this type of behavior is not excusable, especially because humans are able to reason (if they try) and assert some level of control over their actions.

Loughla

7 months ago

Outside of actual physical abuse, I give people zero grace to blame their childhood for their shitty behavior as an adult.

You should be able to work through that shit. Especially if it was just that Dad didn't hug you enough. It's 2025; the tools are available. If you're a shitty adult, that's on you. If you're unable to process your own actions to see how attention seeking and desperate for validation you are, that's on you.

Source: I got the ever-loving hell kicked out of me as a kid, and sought help as an adult so that this nonsense could stop with me. If I can do it, with my lack of willpower and attention span, literally anyone can. Especially if they have access to the time and money required for that process.

justcallmejm

7 months ago

None of us is free until we are all free. It's a pathetic lack of reasoning to arrive at his conclusions.

curt15

7 months ago

>"Libertarianism" seems nowadays to mean complete freedom for me, and not for you.

Just look at how the free speech warriors from a couple years ago have changed their tune.

chermi

7 months ago

They were most likely never libertarian. There's been a wave the last ~10 years of conservatives claiming to be libertarian. I know, no true Scotsman...

pstuart

7 months ago

All the libertarians I've met have been white men with money...

GuinansEyebrows

7 months ago

i feel like a broken record, but i cannot recommend enough the book Dark Money by Jane Mayer for a primer on contemporary "big" american libertarianism.

Aloisius

7 months ago

When an article on a site called Liberal Currents starts making Marxism-adjacent arguments about disproportionate profit compared to contributions, I have to scratch my head about what the hell is happening.

While I don't agree with much of what Andreesen has said in recent years, I will say that given his central complaint is that Democrat elites have gone nuts, writing an article like this really doesn't help.

From the hyperbolic tech oligarchs slur, as if any of them have anything close to the power of an actual historical oligarch (a member of the Thirty Tyrants was the law, judge, jury and executioner) or even that of Russian "oligarchs" when the term was first applied to them, to the charge of treason, a crime that carries a penalty of death, and the promise of revenge - this whole article reads as unhinged.

Unlike Andreesen though, I can't pretend that Republicans haven't gone well past nuts.

ddddang

7 months ago

[dead]

tomhow

7 months ago

No, we don't "censor" things. Users flagged it, and though we're never sure why each user flags anything, in this case it's likely because it doesn't fit with the site's guidelines and intended use, which is to feature content that "satisfies intellectual curiosity".

I explained more here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44572593

mdhb

7 months ago

What are you planning to do about the abuse of the flagging system that has been a huge problem now for some time? It’s very clearly broken and used by a small reactionary minority to control what everyone else is allowed to read and discuss?

You can’t tell me with a straight faith that things are working as intended.

tomhow

7 months ago

From your submissions and comments it seems you want HN to be something different to what it’s intended to be. Then you take it out on us with these kinds of comments that are full of false characterizations like “a small reactionary minority” and barbs like “you can’t tell me with a straight face”.

We look at flagged items and determine if they were reasonable given the guidelines. Plenty of people email us to share their thoughts about whether particular stories should be unflagged, and we’re happy to consider reasoned arguments about this.

But if you want HN to be different from what it’s intended to be, you’ll always be frustrated with how we moderate it.

mdhb

7 months ago

I think that is actually a key part of the issue. It seems by all accounts that you seem to think that things are going great and are happy to deny there is any problem to even begin with which very much feels like gaslighting.

There is a huge amount of evidence now to suggest that the moderating is wildly out of step with the majority opinion on a continuous basis and when asked about it the response is simply to imply it’s a problem with me personally which I know full well not to be true by the fact that certain topics are continually removed from the front page where they are by definition by popular opinion and there has never been a single public action that I could point to that would even begin to acknowledge that there is indeed a small reactionary minority who flag things in ways that have zero resemblance to the stated rules.

People will loudly and proudly on a regular basis talk about how they blindly flag anything that meets their own personal criteria when they could have instead used the hide link just as easily.

There IS a problem here with a small minority of people who continually make decisions on what OTHERS can read, it’s clear as day, you just don’t want to be honest about that fact.

tomhow

7 months ago

You don't need to keep making these accusations of dishonesty and "gaslighting" by us. You just need to look at our incentives. HN can only continue to exist if we keep the site interesting to the majority of users.

A small contingent of users keeps making the same complaint about the flagging of a category of posts, and their activity indicates they want HN to be different from what it is intended to be.

> certain topics are continually removed from the front page where they are by definition by popular opinion

The role of HN is not to cater to "popular opinion". We very specifically exist to surface projects/topics and host discussions that aren't happening elsewhere.

You keep insisting that it's a "small reactionary minority" suppressing these stories. We know that's not what it is; it's users who understand HN's purpose and want it to focus on what it's intended to be: a site that engages curiosity rather than stirring up rage.

We know that political topics are important, and we do make space for them when there is "significant new information", which, despite these complaints, still ends up being multiple times per week. And we get roughly equal complaints from people that there is too little politics and too much.

You're most welcome to do what others do and email us when there's a story that you sincerely believe is good content for HN, given the guidelines, and we're happy to discuss it and explain our thoughts about it.

mdhb

7 months ago

This whole argument is just so disjointed I don’t know where to start other than to once again say that I very much understand that in your opinion things are going exactly as you think they should be but if you’re trying to make the argument that that is the same thing as the rules are written I would disagree.

But in this same post you’ve said:

1. HN needs to be interesting to the MAJORITY of users.

2. HN is not designed to serve MAJORITY opinion.

3. There is no MINORITY of people flagging stories for disingenuous reasons

4. There is however a MINORITY of people complaining about things being flagged despite repeated and almost daily evidence of the opposite happening.

You won’t even admit that there is a potential problem here that there exists a group of people who flag things entirely on ideological grounds with zero bearing on the rules as they are written.

I understand that you’re a moderator here and I’m not but I think you’re doing a bad job and being either dishonest or intentionally obtuse here. At no point did I ever get the impression there was even the slightest sense of curiosity from the moderation team no matter how many times it was mentioned. It’s always the same reply, things are going exactly as we want them to and you’re crazy to suggest otherwise.

tomhow

7 months ago

> in your opinion things are going exactly as you think they should

I don't think that things are going "great" or "exactly as they should" on HN or in the world at large. It takes constant effort to keep political/ideological toxicity from both ends of the spectrum from poisoning this place. I would love it if HN could have a positive influence on politics and the broader world, but in reality we don't have much clout. My personal hope is for every person to have the greatest amount of freedom, opportunity, abundance and agency that can possibly be attained, including for the least privileged in society, and I'd happily have that be an ongoing topic of discussion on HN. But interesting new ideas about that are notably missing from the ragey politics-related discussions seem to happen here.

> 1. HN needs to be interesting to the majority of users.

Yes, otherwise the audience will leave and HN will die.

> 2. HN is not designed to serve majority opinion.

By that I mean we're not about catering to people's opinions about politics/ideology the way news media outlets cater to an ideological position (e.g., Fox News).

> 3. There is no minority of people flagging stories for disingenuous reasons

Dan and I have both been doing this job for years and we look at the flagging patterns every day. There are some users who do mis-use the flag feature, and when that happens we turn their flags off.

> 4. There is however a minority of people complaining about things being flagged despite repeated and almost daily evidence of the opposite happening.

The users complaining about "censorship" or "suppression" of a category of stories make up a relatively small cohort of people who want HN to be more focused on that category of stories, yes. But we look at their activity (submissions, comments) and see that what they want HN to be is different from what HN has always been intended to be, which is a site for curiosity, not rage.

If you can frame your arguments in these terms, we'll have a better discussion. I.e., if you can point out the evidence that we're doing a bad job of optimizing HN for curiosity rather than rage.

jihadjihad

7 months ago

It was marked [flagged] and [dead], I read it and vouched for it, possibly others did the same.

ixtli

7 months ago

i posted it again after it dissapeared the first time, then my post was flagged on and off. i think the mods are arguing lol

josefresco

7 months ago

From what I understand it's not the editors, but rather the HN community (and possibly bots) who engage in this (egregious) flagging behavior. I happens almost daily for anything critical of the current US administration, including posts about Elon. Even posts from reputable news sources like Wired get flagged if they are even remotely critical of the tech oligarchs.

tomhow

7 months ago

An article titled "[name] is a traitor" is not a good article for HN, no matter who it's about, as it's flamebait.

Flagging bots and users who flag inappropriately don't have much effect here. We review flagged posts, and for any account that is flagging inappropriately, their flags get switched off.

Almost every day the accusation is made that anything critical of the U.S. administration or tech celebrities is censored here. And the response is always the same. This stuff gets flagged, correctly, by users who want HN to stay true to its intended purpose, which is to discuss topics that engage intellectual curiosity.

The day-to-day posts criticizing the U.S. administration or tech celebrities normally don't fit this category, because they generally say the same thing as the version was posted the day before, and the comments in the discussions also say largely the same things.

Still, we frequently turn off flags on politics-related posts, or indeed posts about tech celebrities, when they contain "significant new information" and can sustain a discussion thread that contains new ideas in the comments.

The users who keep complaining that these stories are censored are users who seem to want HN to be something other than what it has always been intended to be.

giraffe_lady

7 months ago

Is there any sense that your view of what HN "has always intended to be" needs to be updated in the face of changing relationships between tech and politics? Any reflection on the role this moderation policy has had on the broader world outside of tech?

I regularly see positively rated HN comments that are indistinguishable from stormfront posts 20 years ago. The main stream of tech leadership is directly involved in eliminationist & unconstitutional policies in the US and elsewhere, and uses their authority and influence within the tech industry to promote these racist political platforms.

Any reflection on how HN's moderation policy has allowed them to do so, the impact it has had in providing such fertile ground for them to work in? It seems that what HN was "always intended to be" has turned out to be an effective propaganda tool for one of the most destructive political movements in living memory. I wouldn't feel good about staying the course here.

tomhow

7 months ago

> I regularly see positively rated HN comments that are indistinguishable from stormfront posts 20 years ago.

This is the kind of comment that is only ever made without links that would enable the claim to be evaluated by others.

And the rest of the comment that seems to assert that the political craziness in the world is the fault of HN is pretty wild, but is perhaps an assumption that explains why some people think this is an important place to conduct ideological battle.

We’re a tiny site in the scheme of things. None of the tech leaders who are influential in politics have been active or popular on HN for years, if ever. The HN audience has always been distrustful of big tech and the relationship between corporations and politics. The core HN audience is people who work in tech (mostly employees or freelancers) who are interested learning new things and like to work on interesting projects.

We know we are not - and cannot be - a bubble that’s isolated from the rest of the world. But it’s a mistake to think that HN has any significant influence on politics or the tech leaders who are active in politics.

giraffe_lady

7 months ago

I am suggesting HN change its moderation policies in light of having been inadvertently and effectively used for far right propaganda and your rebuttal is along the lines of "no, because it wasn't effective." Do I have that right or would you like to clarify? It seems like my position is that I believe HN has a greater reach and impact than the editorial team of HN itself does?

Here are a few comment examples that it took me not very much time or effort to find. I hope seeing them changes your mind somewhat.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39359199

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41697845

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39823820

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39749415

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40311057

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41658850

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39280659

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38210959

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36269058

tptacek

7 months ago

These aren't stories, they're random comments on random threads over the past two years. Some of them, had you flagged them and mailed hn@yc about them, likely would have gotten moderated (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41658850, for example). But moderators don't see all the comments, so if you want something done about them, you have to help make that happen.

Most of them, though, are simply comments you and I disagree with. It's an open-access site, people are going to write things you disagree with, and there isn't going to be a moderation rule saying, for instance, that only anti-carceral comments are allowed on the site.

I spend a weird amount of time watching for specific patterns of nasty shit on HN (use the search bar to see if I've missed a race/IQ in the last year) and my experience has been the moderators are as repulsed by toxicity as I am, and they're quick to act.

You're not the first of us to express concerns that the specific moderation principles HN uses are too accommodating to toxic edgelordism (another long-timer once noted that they appear to function as a kind of grooming academy for hateful rhetoric, allowing in almost any sentiment expressed coolly and without vitriol). But improvements aren't as easy as they look. A good exercise: if you think comment moderation is failing because the rules aren't right, propose the next guideline that would fix it.

I've been doing that for years, and some of my guideline proposals have made it in (can't see everyone else's comment scores: you're welcome). Most of the ones that haven't, though, I've come to see would have been unworkable.

zozbot234

7 months ago

Thing is, that kind of vitriol is the whole point of hateful rhetoric, by and large. It's what occasionally makes "hate" appealing to some people in the first place - see your local hate-filled social media network for evidence of that. Posting "hateful rhetoric ... coolly and without vitriol", intentionally or not, is an excellent way of unpacking it for everyone else and showing just how pointless it really is.

tptacek

7 months ago

Sure; the system we have in place is rather good at handling overtly vitriolic comments (my experience is generally that user flags kill them before emails to the moderators land). I'm just leaving open space for critiques of HN moderation; those are a fine thing, but they're really only meaningful if you can write the moderation guidelines that fill the gaps you're worried about.

josefresco

7 months ago

> The main stream of tech leadership is directly involved in eliminationist & unconstitutional policies in the US and elsewhere

This 100%. I would add these tech oligarchs and their captured employees are the users here.

>It seems that what HN was "always intended to be" has turned out to be an effective propaganda tool for one of the most destructive political movements in living memory. I wouldn't feel good about staying the course here.

Perfectly said, if this is what HN wants to be (another propaganda arm of the regime and oligarch mouthpiece) I'm not sure there's a future here.

tomhow

7 months ago

HN has no interest in being a mouthpiece for the rich and powerful any more that we want to be a venting space for people who push the same ideological rhetoric no matter the topic.

What we are here for is to find and share interesting new ideas, including/especially ones that can help address the biggest problems in the world (rare as they may be).

josefresco

7 months ago

> This stuff gets flagged, correctly, by users who want HN to stay true to its intended purpose, which is to discuss topics that engage intellectual curiosity.

I respectfully disagree with your claim that these posts are flagged "correctly". Many of these posts, while related to politics or current news cover highly technical and intellectually intriguing topics. I think it's pretty disingenuous to say these users are acting genuinely in the best interest of the community.

To make matters worse, reputable media outlets like 404 Media who publish highly relevant but critical articles are autoflagged. The reason given "because they have paywall" which is 100% BS.

tomhow

7 months ago

You’re always welcome to email us to point out an article that has that potential to sustain a high quality discussion. These things are often best judged by their consequences. If the thread if full of repetitive ideological rhetoric, it’s not good for HN. If it has plenty of interesting new ideas, then it belongs here and we’ll happily give it the exposure the community wants. Either way, we’re answerable to the community.

123yawaworht456

7 months ago

there is, almost at any given time, a designated thread with a two minutes hate about the musky man.