3 ms·

>Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Cook wield influence comparable to that of Andrew Carnegie and John Rockefeller Can anyone point to any influence these people are act

>Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Cook wield influence comparable to that of Andrew Carnegie and John Rockefeller Can anyone point to any influence these people are actually having on American politics? I mean, according to the tinfoil hat brigade, the Rockefellers are behind every second conspiracy on the planet. How will these other obscenely rich folk get a pass? I think the political tides have already shifted. The 1% are the 1%, regardless of whether we think iPhones are cool. I'll bet on Tim Cook and Mark Zuckerberg having less influence going forward.

mrdrozdov 11y ago
Perhaps Zuckerberg and political media, Cook and privacy?
ethbro 11y ago
That's the tragedy of Citizens United. They would have less influence if they couldn't turn dollars into votes. Unfortunately, they can, and so a few billion dollars buys a fair amount of political support.
- yardie 11y ago
  Have you paid any attention to the news lately? The number 1 and number 2 candidates of the republican and democrat parties are small money candidates that are embarrassing the shit out of both national parties. The GOP golden boy, Jeb Bush, has had to bow out. Even with a $100mm war chest voters still weren't buying it. The only thing CU has done is put into law what everyone kind of already knew.
  - ethbro 11y ago
    Trump is a populist running on his party base's concerns after they've been whipped up for the past decade about how evil everyone else is. And reaping the long-term consequences of the Southern Strategy of the 1950s/60s Republican party. Also, he's #121 on the Forbes 400 richest Americans. Sanders is funding from small donors, but he's #2 in a two person Democratic primary race. I'm not seeing an explanation here that consoles me about money not having an oversized impact on American democracy. And "what everyone kind of knew" (but was illegal) is far different from 'explicitly condoned by the Supreme Court.'
im3w1l 11y ago
Well we first we have the moderation power, as discussed yesterday. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11500234 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11500234 And then the power that comes with lavish charitable donations.

mrdrozdov 11y ago

Perhaps Zuckerberg and political media, Cook and privacy?

ethbro 11y ago

That's the tragedy of Citizens United. They would have less influence if they couldn't turn dollars into votes. Unfortunately, they can, and so a few billion dollars buys a fair amount of political support.

yardie 11y ago
Have you paid any attention to the news lately? The number 1 and number 2 candidates of the republican and democrat parties are small money candidates that are embarrassing the shit out of both national parties. The GOP golden boy, Jeb Bush, has had to bow out. Even with a $100mm war chest voters still weren't buying it. The only thing CU has done is put into law what everyone kind of already knew.
- ethbro 11y ago
  Trump is a populist running on his party base's concerns after they've been whipped up for the past decade about how evil everyone else is. And reaping the long-term consequences of the Southern Strategy of the 1950s/60s Republican party. Also, he's #121 on the Forbes 400 richest Americans. Sanders is funding from small donors, but he's #2 in a two person Democratic primary race. I'm not seeing an explanation here that consoles me about money not having an oversized impact on American democracy. And "what everyone kind of knew" (but was illegal) is far different from 'explicitly condoned by the Supreme Court.'

im3w1l 11y ago

Well we first we have the moderation power, as discussed yesterday. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11500234 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11500234 And then the power that comes with lavish charitable donations.