18 ms·

George Soros: Facebook and Google are a menace to society

• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• f_allwein 9y ago
  From the speech transcript [ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16237684 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16237684 ]: “Social media companies deceive their users by manipulating their attention and directing it towards their own commercial purposes. They deliberately engineer addiction to the services they provide. This can be very harmful, particularly for adolescents. There is a similarity between internet platforms and gambling companies.” Good points to raise, but as a former Googler, I’m a bit surprised how he does not distinguish between Google and FB at all. Are we all Google addicted then? Remember Google’s main business, Search, is still about getting you away from Google as quick as possible.
  • Animats 9y ago
    Google’s main business, Search, is still about getting you away from Google as quick as possible. It used to be. But that was a while ago. Most of the Google search results today for popular topics lead to Google properties or are ads. As I've pointed out for years, when search works right, the search engine doesn't make any money. Page and Brin made that point in the original Google paper.
    • beaner 9y ago
      I feel a little bit like, give me a break... Google actually has some legit products which are actually the most relevant search results for some queries. If those are the only things you see at the top you're not really looking for anything particularly interesting.
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    • f_allwein 9y ago
      > Most of the Google search results today for popular topics lead to Google properties or are ads This does not match my experience. Can you give some examples? "are ads" - do you mean AdWords, or websites in the search results that are actually ads? As a single data point, I just did a Google search for [music subscription services]. First result (for me) is Wikipedia, followed by several comparisons, Spotify on 5th place, and Google Music not ranking in the top 10. Looks good to me.
      • TeMPOraL 9y ago
        It depends on the query, location, and probably bunch of other things. Right now, if I do a Google search for the word "buty" (polish for "shoes"), 8 results fit on my screen, and first 4 of them are ads (explicitly labeled as such) (also, it was 4 out of 7 before I closed the "we've revised our privacy policy" dialog).
      • lukeschlather 9y ago
        What I see is a list of cards that take up most of the page. Each card has a logo in it. First card is Spotify, second card is Google Play. When I click on a card I get a search for that brand where the first result is an ad for that brand's website. On the original page, the only other visible links are an ad for Amazon Music, and (mostly below-the-fold) "best music streaming services" from Consumer Reports.
    • jacksmith21006 9y ago
      Disagree. I search something and away all day long. If not would use something else as most would. Now it is true Google gives me what I need on Google but it is not done to try to make me stay or try to drive engagement like Facebook. Google is trying to get you to come back soon while FB is stay and never leave.
  • lwansbrough 9y ago
    > getting you away from Google as quick as possible. Pretty sure virtually every website on the internet is talking to Google one way or another. So it doesn't really matter whether you're on Google or not, does it?
    • stevenwoo 9y ago
      This also applies to Facebook with the ubiquity of the Facebook login SDK and tracking.
      • prewett 9y ago
        I deleted my FB cookies on my main browser and only ever login to FB on a different browser to try to minimize this. Although, I guess I could have done incognito mode.
        • Freak_NL 9y ago
          Your friends, colleagues, and family likely have you in their contact lists, so Facebook knows you are missing from its graph. In lieu of an active profile they maintain a shadow profile for (at least) your phone number, and whatever additional information people who know you have unwittingly provided to Facebook and its daughters (e.g., WhatsApp). Facebook knows us by our social connections. We don't have to actually use it for that. As long as your browser's privacy add-ons disable Facebook's widgets (the like-button) it probably can't track your browsing habits though.
  • ladberg 9y ago
    Facebook is definitely more in the straight up designed addiction game, but Google isn't far away in my mind. Google's main business is advertising, through Search. To do this, they have to keep you coming back to Google and at the same time know everything about you to give you the most relevant ads. This is done by tailoring the search results to you, which is usually good, but can still create a "bubble" because I'll usually end up seeing articles that agree with my points of view without intending to do so.
  • YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
    >> Remember Google’s main business, Search, is still about getting you away from Google as quick as possible. That's one perspective. Another is that it's about taking you were google wants as quickly as possible.
  • C14L 9y ago
    Search "getting you away" from Google? Have you seen the result pages for many "juicy" queries? It's almost entirely Google properties and ads ATF.
  • charlesism 9y ago
    Hm, there's the cesspool that is YouTube. And even with search, there's data collection and tracking. Does anyone on the internet ever really escape Google?
  • gaius 9y ago
    Remember Google’s main business, Search, is still about getting you away from Google as quick as possible. If Google sends you to a site with embedded adwords and analytics in what sense are you “away” from Google?
    • TeMPOraL 9y ago
      Also, there's AMP.
      • thisacctforreal 9y ago
        Also OneBox results, perhaps better-known as instant answers. They've been around in various forms since at least as early as 2006[0] [0] https://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2006/07/google-onebox-results.html https://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2006/07/google-onebox-resu...
  • cornholio 9y ago
    I think this part strikes right at Google, since they are much more an infrastructure provider, not just a site you can avoid using: <<Soros warned of an “even more alarming prospect” on the horizon if data-rich internet companies such as Facebook and Google paired their corporate surveillance systems with state-sponsored surveillance – a trend that’s already emerging in places such as the Philippines. “This may well result in a web of totalitarian control the likes of which not even Aldous Huxley or George Orwell could have imagined,” he said.>>
    • curun1r 9y ago
      It's worth noting that Soros is likely to be predisposed to seeing the "red flags" (pun intended) of oppressive government spying and despotism having experienced first-hand during his formative teen years the Nazi occupation of Hungary and the subsequent Soviet period, initially in-country and then from afar in England. It's both a valuable paranoia, but also one that's likely to be prone to overestimate the worst-case scenario and the slipperiness of the slope, so to speak. I'm definitely concerned by the surveillance state that's developing, but I also believe that our flag is significantly less red than both the Nazi and Soviet flags, both literally and figuratively. I think it's important that we're wary of slippages in freedoms of citizens without resorting to hyperbole and comparing the current situation to oppressive regimes which murdered so many millions of their own citizens definitely feels hyperbolic.
      • TeMPOraL 9y ago
        Yeah, I don't think anyone seriously believes that any first-world country is a fascist state. The worry is, one might become such state in 10-20 years, with all the oppression infrastructure readily available to use.
      • wslh 9y ago
        You underestimated the part when he studied philosophy.
      • cornholio 9y ago
        Human nature hasn't really changed in the last hundred years. My great grandfather was imprisoned as an enemy of the people and my father was tracked by the Securitate political police - it's not such a distant dystopia for me so I empathize with Soros. The danger here is that we might be lulling ourselves in a complacent state "it can't happen to us", because of our values, democracy, political system, etc. while at the same time putting in place massive infrastructure ripe for totalitarian abuse. At a moment's notice, the situation can transition radically with the monsters lurking in the shadows taking full control of an unstoppable surveillance machine, indeed of a capacity not even Orwell could imagine - now capable of autonomous decision and self enforcement for absolute compliance. The trigger could be something as banale as a military conflict - our capacity to chose freedom as opposed to complete physical security has steadily gotten worse. Once in place totalitarian rule is strongly self enforcing and very very hard to shake, it corrodes all social cohesion and institutions, turning individuals into survival or full denial mode.
  • yabatopia 9y ago
    Google's main business is advertising, search is just one of the vehicles to deliver the ads. Google wants you to see, watch and click as many ads as possible. The top search results are all ads and look very similar - more than ever - to real search results. And than you have Youtube, a gorefest of ads and unfiltered comments, with creators begging for likes and subs.
    • iamgopal 9y ago
      My long trail search never have ads. For only very common words they show advertise. How else they going to afford this free facility ?
  • Sir_Substance 9y ago
    >Remember Google’s main business, Search, is still about getting you away from Google as quick as possible. Uuuuum...off the top of my head with no investigation at all: If I search for anything that could plausibly involve a video, I get a string of youtube links at the top of my google search. Google favors AMP links over sending me to the actual website. I'm sure I could come up with more, given half a second. Ever been directed to bing maps from google, for example?
  • room271 9y ago
    Youtube?
  • Shivetya 9y ago
    facebook's addiction is that most people love to be heard and seen. they want to be center of attention. I cannot fault facebook for enabling that. If anything it may have brought more people into association with others than any previous internet platform. for me what Soros and many politicians have in common is they see two very powerful people enabling systems they don't hold sway over. Soros and his type with their money don't have it and politicians cannot control the message. so both groups throw their wealth, influence, and power, behind efforts to convince people that entities like google and facebook are a threat to the people where they really are a threat to the old power brokers that are loathe to give them up. it wasn't too long ago they controlled the message, either directly or through sycophants in the media. the internet through companies like google and facebook ended that control and hence constitute a threat
    • bornonline1 9y ago
      It's not that people don't want be be seen and heard, but that socials encourage the desire to be seen and heard. It the past, fame wasn't a priority.
  • zingmars 9y ago
    Google's main business is ads, not Search, but even then Google still owns YouTube, Gmail and other things that are used by people every single day. On top of that they haven't been particularity neutral as far as politics are concerned and have even changed search for political reasons (fighting "fake news"). So yes, Google is definitely an influencer just like Facebook is.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • test001only 9y ago
    "Target users by manipulating their attention and directing it towards their own commercial purposes." There is whole lot of other industries that do this - marketing, food packaging, adding additives like sugar, advertisement. He just described what every business does. It is ironic to hear from a billionaire who made his money investing in free market that Google and Facebook should be regulated.
    • BorkJames 9y ago
      The difference is that most people feel like they understand cereal, although the marketing for most cereals are directly targeting children it's just a box of cereal so nobody cares. Most people don't understand Google or Facebook (or even the internet as a generalized service) so saying advertisements are manipulating people in regards to that pushes some beyond the threshold of comfort. It's not really the one thing that causes an issue for them, but the whole stack of other things behind it that eventually causes them to focus on a singular point that's easiest for them to complain about. Nobody wants to complain about their personal lack of knowledge, but a big bad unknown scary thing is easy to rally against.
    • goialoq 9y ago
      Soros made his money by betting against people less shrew then he, not by manipulating people's minds. He's like a poker player who is opposed to modern slot machines that scream for attention and mislead about their odds of winning. Both are casino games, there's a clear ethical difference.
    • tinymollusk 9y ago
      It's possible that Soros is blind to those other issues because they always existed for him in some shape, during his life. Internet-based addiction, internet-based anything, computer-based anything, is something he was aware of it's introduction. That is much easier to notice, when you're alive during the change, rather than living with food additives always existing. (I think this would be called the Normalcy Bias.) I suggest instead of seeing it ironically, see it as Soros being blinded by his biases, like we all are. Given that, it would be better to say "yes, this, AND it's also similar to XYZ", rather than appearing to dismiss what I think are very accurate views (on the danger of FB/attention merchanting).
  • benevol 9y ago
    > Google’s main business, Search, is still about getting you away from Google as quick as possible Google Analytics. On virtually every website, tracking everybody, all the time. Google is trying to get as much data about us as they can, and if you are an ex-Googler, you are pretty blue-eyed.
  • amelius 9y ago
    > Remember Google’s main business, Search, is still about getting you away from Google as quick as possible. Away to a place that will show more Google ads.
  • csomar 9y ago
    I’d say google control information way more than facebook. For serious stuff, work or study you usually go to google. There is little recourse for content if it doesn’t display there.
  • Chathamization 9y ago
    Google's Youtube is incredibly pernicious. Every time you visit to watch a specific video, they bombard you with the videos that they've decided are the most likely to distract you. They even have autoplay on by default so you can get sucked in to a video you didn't decide to watch before you realize it.
  • philipodonnell 9y ago
    Youtube? If you ever watch a kid going through one of those toy unwrapping channels its not far-fetched to think that there's something going on there that's playing on the way their brain works to keep them coming back for more.
    • jamesblonde 9y ago
      Unboxing is the technical term :) Yes, my kids watch that crap, too. It's fiendishly addictive for them, scarily so.
      • philipodonnell 9y ago
        Ah, yes. Thank you. :-) I am about to have my first so I expect there is a whole new world of YouTube-related lingo to learn!
  • po 9y ago
    YouTube is at least 2x as bad as Facebook is in terms of indulging you in your addiction to whatever crazy conspiracy theory you want today (which is saying a lot). Facebook is perhaps better at exposing you to your neighbor's crazy conspiracy theory. Somehow Google has managed to capture all of the profit from YouTube with none of the political/brand consequences by keeping the brand separate. It's working in the mass media and shockingly it's also somehow working in the minds of tech workers. Everyone talks about Facebook and Twitter but I rarely hear about YouTube even though I suspect they are way more influential with younger crowds.
    • the_af 9y ago
      In my experience, YouTube is a lot less spammy and attention-grabbing than facebook. It may be that my usage pattern is completely different to most users, but I almost always use YouTube by actively searching for stuff (I don't have a feed of "YouTube news", like it happens on facebook). There are no "This man wanted to surprise his wife and you'll never guess what happened" links in YouTube. I only get notifications about channels I'm subscribed to. Very occasionally -- almost never -- after watching a video I will click on suggested videos, because they are almost always relevant (besides music, I'm interested in hobby/miniatures/boardgames and the suggestions I get are almost always relevant). Disclaimer: I use YouTube with uBlock, so I never have to see unskippable ads. In my opinion, this is the only way to use YouTube (and the only way which makes listening to playlists feasible); if this possibility ever goes away, I'll likely stop using YouTube. edit: a sibling comment mentioned autoplay. Autoplay is indeed one of YouTube's spammy features, and I wish it went away. With Facebook, it's almost constant spam about stuff I'm not interested in. People -- my contacts! -- share all kinds of crap. And Twitter is even worse, with lots of spam and with ads I constantly need to remind Twitter I don't want to see.
    • ataturk 9y ago
      Youtube has a lot of solid content, tutorials, documentaries, reviews. I've learned so much there and done so very efficiently. I wouldn't sweat the "fake" information, it's not that big of a deal.
    • jacksmith21006 9y ago
  • agumonkey 9y ago
    It's half true now. Google used to help you find your way on the web, but now it's your world third eye. There's not really information outside google anymore. It will parse it, synthesize it in cards, connect it to local areas, pop up videos about it, etc etc.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • camus2 9y ago
    > Remember Google’s main business, Search, is still about getting you away from Google as quick as possible. As a googler, you don't even know that your own company provides analytic tools for websites, as well as personalized integrated search for websites? ads on third party websites? webmaster tools? script cdn? font hosting? AMP cache ? ... getting out of "google.com" doesn't mean that the user stops being tracked by google.
• dfee 9y ago
  I agreed with him until his conclusion: "[Google and Facebook] claim that they are merely distributing information, but the fact that they are near monopoly distributors make them in to public utilities - and should subject them to more stringent regulations aimed at preserving competition, innovation and fair and open universal access." George Soros always seems to be selling something, so hearing the billionaire cry foul gives me pause. I don't disagree with the stated ambition – "preserved competition, innovation and fair and open universal access", but I'm hesitant to join the rallying cry for heavy handed regulation at this point. These always seem to come down on other companies that don't have the resources to manage the regulations and create an even more protectionist environment. What are the unintended consequences of these regulations? We've all benefited from the work that Google and Facebook have open sourced (definitely pushed outside innovation forward), and many incredible businesses and entrepreneurs have found footing on the solid platforms of each. I don't know. I imagine that if we view these companies on a longer time frame, we'll see that they end up folding in on themselves like every other company – just maybe a generation or two later.
  • TeMPOraL 9y ago
    I feel like the solution doesn't necessarily need to involve new regulations. Maybe just the application of existing ones to those companies would be enough? Like his mention of "public utilities" - what would happen, if search engines / social media started getting classified as such?
    • zdkl 9y ago
      Especially if This Time(tm) we manage to get an open alternative running well enough for public use. I know I'm definitely going to look into ActivityPub for my social circle, and DDG is more and more credible. There's yet hope I guess!
      • dogma1138 9y ago
        DDG works only because Google does if everyone shifts from Google and it’s search results tank because it loses all of the data associated with what and how people search so will DDG.
• CryptoPunk 9y ago
  I would rather solutions to large concentrations of tech power not come from above, in the way of government further expanding its control over the private sphere, but from below, via technological innovation in the form of distributed technologies like blockchains.
  • stevenwoo 9y ago
    What would you consider an example of a monopoly being broken by the market rather than government intervention?
    • CryptoPunk 9y ago
      Android breaking Windows' monopoly on operating systems. It did so largely by eclipsing the desktop computer by facilitating the creation of a new mode of personal computing. One could argue that TCP/IP and web standards like HTTP and HTML similarly made the desktop and its associated software (operating system, productivity suites, etc) less relevant, by increasing the ability of desktop users to access computing resources served by machines running different operating systems (e.g. a Linux server).
      • croon 9y ago
        So what you're saying is that you can't break a monopoly through market forces, but merely wait out the monopoly market's relevance?
        • CryptoPunk 9y ago
          You can make the monopoly less relevant or irrelevant by superseding its market. Maybe saying that's a case of "breaking the monopoly" is a stretch, but the point is it's a valid solution to the problems of a monopoly, which emanate from the market and financial power its controller wields.
    • petre 9y ago
      Politicians are already in the pockets of monopolies, that's why. Look at Microsoft: their monopoly on the desktop was broken by the rise of mobile, so clearly by market forces. Monopolies just get replaced by other monopolies.
• TotallyHuman 9y ago
  George Soros is a by far larger menace to society.
  • pavlov 9y ago
    If you want to make this argument, you should explain why that is and how it’s even relevant in the context of his statement about tech companies’ monopolistic power. Otherwise it just comes across as a useless knee-jerk reaction to the name of Soros: “Hurr hurr reptilian Jews new world order something something globalists.”
    • peoplewindow 9y ago
      As you appear to know, Soros is something of a divisive figure, especially recently and especially amongst conservatives. It can be seen if you look at very conservative outlets like Breitbart or study the statements of the Hungarian government and other eastern European governments. Hungarian ministers and the PM in particular really hate Soros and frequently attack him. Essentially, the gist of the complaint is that Soros is the world's largest social engineer. This is obviously very relevant in the context of Soros calling for tech firms to be tightly controlled so people only see "right" information, as he sees it - this would seem likely to be another part of his social engineering effort. He has set up a fund with about 32 billion dollars in it, explicitly for the purpose of ensuring society follows his preferred path - one world government, open borders everywhere, EU replacing national governments, legal abortion everywhere, mass migration from Africa and so on. To achieve this Soros must have tremendous influence on politics, which he does through his extensive lobbying, and his fund - being dedicated specifically to the global triumph of liberal politics - routinely makes huge donations to political parties, campaign groups, etc around the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros#Political_involvement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros#Political_involve... Thus an article where he calls for important news feeds to be controlled by governments is concerning for two reasons: 1. It's not just a guy with an opinion. It is a public instruction to all politicians everywhere on what they must do to qualify for more of his money. 2. He is likely being disingenuous about his real reasons. He says "think of the children" but his foundation is not about child protection. It puts far more emphasis on migration policies than that.
• simonh 9y ago
  Facebook and Google both have histories of actively shaping user behaviour and directing attention which are very problematic. I definitely agree with that. Particularly Facebook, which seems much more aggressive and tone deaf in that regard. It’s a problem that I think is a legitimate area for regulation or at least oversight combined with voluntary restraint, because users are being deceived. They should at least know how their attention is being directed and have some controls over it. I don’t agree that treating them as utilities is going to foster innovation. Really? Utilities are examples of innovation? Both Google and Facebook are still highly innovative companies, that’s how they created and consolidated their positions. They key is that the future success of their innovations should be based on merit versus other innovative companies, rather than based on leveraging their current market strength in anticompetitive ways. This is all really hard to do. There is just as much threat that clumsy regulation will stifle innovation, fossilize market positions and increase costs as there is that lack of regulation will lead to abuses by these companies. It’s good that this issue is being debated, but I don’t think anyone has good answers yet.
  • gaius 9y ago
    Utilities are examples of innovation? It’s funny, I take streaming 4k from Netflix totally for granted but I am genuinely impressed by the way natural gas and fresh drinking water appear in my house as if by magic.
    • rrmm 9y ago
      And urban life as we know it would be impossible without sewage and sanitation services.
      • thisacctforreal 9y ago
        We've had that technology since Rome. I think it's fair to say most current internet and cable monopolies have been dragging their feet on upgrades, and even actively resisting innovation.
        • 9y ago
• swarnie_ 9y ago
  Pot, meet kettle...
• staunch 9y ago
  A comparison to oil monopolies confirms that he's entirely confused. There is absolutely no historical analog to Google or Facebook. Everything about the internet and computer technology is uncharted territory. The most technical human on earth can't predict what will happen even 5 years in the future. It is safe to predict that Google and Facebook are going to be obsoleted by newer, cheaper, better technology. Google/Facebook operate highly inefficient businesses and that's the weakness that will wipe them both out. No government intervention will be necessary. Hint: #decentralization The big internet risk is the last mile, controlled by Comcast/AT&T. We need a campaign to move the whole country to fiber conduit powered by local internet providers.
  • TeMPOraL 9y ago
    > Hint: #decentralization Any idea how it's going to happen? Historical evidence so far suggests technologies tend to centralize. And it's quite obvious why - centralized systems are generally more efficient in terms of energy use, time and (important for market) money. There's a solid incentive gradient pushing things towards further centralization, and very weak one in the opposite direction. I do not see anything on the horizon that would change it (and no, blockchains don't count for now - if anything, cryptocurrencies are a lesson in just how quickly systems centralize).
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • staunch 9y ago
      "Historical evidence" does not exist! There are new decentralized protocols being launched every ~day now. This is how decentralization really works, it's crazy and wild, and not at all planned by anyone. Even just an evolved version of this, a ten thousand centralized internet currency marketplace, would constitute a decentralized internet currency system. And this is probably the weakest system that could result.
      • Dumbdo 9y ago
        > There are new decentralized protocols being launched every ~day now That may be true, but why does it matter if there's no adoption? As the guy you replied to pointed out, there's no incentive to use a decentralized system for the average user as it's more inefficient and slower by design. I'm not saying that I'm not interested in decentralized systems, I'm simply arguing that there's no incentive to use them except for a few people whose interest in privacy is very high.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• beegeezuz 9y ago
  And yet nobody is raising a question of why is Soros giving speeches to world leaders in Davos...
• _pdp_ 9y ago
  If the rumours that Zuckerberg is prepping for the US presidency are true then this will be one of the first attacks to come on his business and character.
• zecg 9y ago
  Google+ is the best social network, I haven't been there in years.
• gonvaled 9y ago
  Dataism is here to stay: if it is not Google / Facebook, it will be somebody else. Progress can not be stopped. Those regulating their technology industry will be left behind. Taking a line from Jurassic Park: "Life finds a way". We are doomed to become irrelevant, unless we are really special, which is not probable.
• gimmeayrwlt 9y ago
  In the same month Facebook’s founding chairman, Sean Parker, criticised his former employer: “God only knows what it’s doing to our children’s brains,” he said.
• maximumkek 9y ago
  yes yes 100% true Also refugees welcome.
• tw1010 9y ago
  It feels like we're just trying to find something to get pissed off about. No one is forcing anyone to use these services. Everyone is using it by their own volition.
• aj7 9y ago
  This is entirely peripheral to the discussion but I actually attempted to “watch” the live feed of Soros’ speech on facebook.bloomberg.etc You know, where the little face emojis, each with a comment, flash across the stream. Never saw such unabashed hatred for anyone. Lies that a nine-year-old Jewish kid was a Nazi collaborator, implications that he was Satan, plaintive wishes that he would just die, “the works.” It was a remarkable focus and quantity of pure hatred of a single person.
  • dsacco 9y ago
    Your description reminds me of Black Mirror Season 3 Episode 6, Hated In The Nation.
  • crusso 9y ago
    Do you think it would be any different for a speech from one of the Koch brothers? People who use their wealth to directly influence the political process are particularly reviled by their ideological opponents.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • croon 9y ago
      https://www.google.se/search?q=ben+garrison+soros&tbm=isch https://www.google.se/search?q=ben+garrison+soros&tbm=isch https://www.google.se/search?q=infowars+soros https://www.google.se/search?q=infowars+soros (400k+ hits) Try this with breitbart, glenn beck, fox news, right wing subreddits etc. Is there any similar counterpart for Kochs and Mercers et al?
      • crusso 9y ago
        Are you wondering if there are lots of political cartoons for them? Seems to be. https://www.google.com/search?q=koch+political+cartoons&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZgt__1vXYAhULrFMKHdKnDSsQ_AUICigB&biw=1360&bih=752 https://www.google.com/search?q=koch+political+cartoons&sour...
• z0ltan 9y ago
  Fuck George Soros.
• z0ltan 9y ago
  Fuck George Soros is his rusted old arsehole, the filthy subhuman. To think people are trying to get this cunt the Nobel Prize (not that the prize itself is not a big joke).
  • sctb 9y ago
    This comment is both rude and dumb. Please do not post like this here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
• Daycrawler 9y ago
  I agree with all except that it needs to be regulated. Nor Google nor Facebook (nor any social media) are pushed down our throats, and it is the choice of the people to use it. I don't understand how consumers can build judgement and learn to be responsible for themselves if we always shelter them from poor consumption choices through regulation laws. Furthermore if they're unaware enough to need regulation laws, it means they're unaware enough to be abused by regulation laws, so it's definitely not an actual solution.
• kelvin0 9y ago
  A long time ago, the printed word was the way to influence and disseminate ideas. Some ideas good, some less and most people could not read. Then came Radio with it's ads and shows. It was another way to nudge the masses and shape the 'public' opinion. Everyone who had a radio could tune-in. Television, the moving image! The joy: everyone could watch an endless stream of shows. This was not lost on advertisers ,corporations and propaganda arms of the states. Now comes FB, Google, Twitter and all these attention hoarding 'services'. I am not a user of any social medias (not do I condone their use), but how is that different from the previous innovations which allows mass communication? If anything it seems to me that Soros and others might find it decentralizes and weakens their power of media convergence? Would Soros think the same if he had been CEO of FB? Of course I am sad of seeing so many young people wasting their attention on their illuminated mobile screens, and certainly see the harm in it. But Soros, what is you 'beef' with FB? I doubt that the devolution of humanity makes him loose sleep at night.
  • saiya-jin 9y ago
    exactly... he didn't mind times > 20 years ago, where 99% of the population blindly consumed what was said in TV/radio without questioning, without having any means to cross check it with any other alternative. I don't think anybody here considers those 2 companies as something holy and pure good, but they are pretty clear in their mission. While doing it, they provide extremely useful tools to billions and ways to communicate with other human beings or learn anything known to human species, for free. Just use parts of the toolset that help you, ignore the rest. Oh, and use good ad-blocker. None of these companies will prevent you from using their products, although ad revenue is their biggest source of income. Or if you are bloody pissed off at them, don't use them at all. Good enough alternatives exist.
  • sorokod 9y ago
    In the same way poppy juice differs from oxycontin.
  • jacksnipe 9y ago
    David Foster Wallace addresses this in his essay "E Unibus Pluram: Television and U.S. Fiction" [1]. The essay was written just as computing technology was starting to get to the point where it was clear it was about to be ubiquitous. For context, DFW is attacking Gilder's hypothesis that the decentralized nature of the next big medium will give people some measure of control over their reality, and he is using a novel by Leyner about a future in which everybody can slice and dice their experience of reality at will to illustrate his point. "Leyner's world is a Gilderesque dystopia. The passivity and schizoid decay still endure for Leyner in his characters' reception of images and waves of data. The ability to combine them only adds a layer of disorientation: when all experience can be deconstructed and reconfigured, there become simply too many choices. And in the absence of any credible, noncommercial guides for living, the freedom to choose is about as "liberating" as a bad acid trip: each quantum is as good as the next, and the only standard of a particular construct's quality is its weirdness, incongruity, its ability to stand out from a crowd of other image-constructs and wow some Audience." I found it disturbingly descriptive of today's cultural landscape. (NOTE: Obviously fiction analysis != analysis of reality, but the essay has some very good points.) [1] https://jsomers.net/DFW_TV.pdf https://jsomers.net/DFW_TV.pdf
• dqpb 9y ago
  How about we start treating internet as a public utility before we start demanding that web apps are.
• golemotron 9y ago
  The real problem with Google, Facebook and other social media companies is that they are two faced. They present themselves as information sources based on organic interactions and ratings of their users but there can't be any guarantee that they don't manipulate feeds for other purposes. Even without an advertising model, we can't go back to a time without curation. People try to game rankings and ratings for other reasons. That means that we can't trust what we see on social and, more importantly, draw any inference from what we don't see. Society needs avenues of unmediated communication. I don't know what that would look like for social.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
• sandov 9y ago
  George Soros is a menace to society. Yes Facebook and Google are too, but it's in the hands of people to stop giving them too much power. Soros can go regulate a dick up his ass.
  • rplst8 9y ago
    Should be the top comment. Soros is just mad he can't easily manipulate the public anymore.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • seattle_spring 9y ago
      The top comment should be one advocating the rape of a philanthropist?
      • dang 9y ago
        Please don't feed egregious comments by replying to them. Instead, flag them as the site guidelines ask: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
• narrator 9y ago
  I think Facebook and Google enable populism. George Soros doesn't like that, because if populism took care of everything they wouldn't need his billions funding organizations that seek to start populist movements that promote his values and narratives. The main narrative that Soros promotes is "nationalism is racism" and the corralary "strong states are fascist". This is why he is unpopular with nationalist governments in Eastern Europe for example that reject EU immigration rules and why he attempts to undermine those government's legitimacy in Hungary for example. He can pay for media campaigns to support his positions and he can exert influence financially over media networks, but he can't control the masses on social media which thwart his vision.
  • vanderZwan 9y ago
    I'm not a fan of him in the least, but I'm still more inclined to believe that George Soros doesn't like enabling populism because he's a Jew who survived a Nazi occupation and has seen up close what populism leads to. Also, you're contradiction yourself, because if Soros is all about starting populist movements, and Facebook and Google enable that, they would be his closest allies. > The main narrative that Soros promotes is "nationalism is racism" and the corralary "strong states are fascist". Did you catch the part about him being a Jew who survived Nazi-occupied Hungary?
    • rjzzleep 9y ago
      > Also, you're contradiction yourself, because if Soros is all about starting populist movements, and Facebook and Google enable that, they would be his closest allies. There's a fallacy here involving your assumption that all populist movement follow the same agenda. If they don't, they're clearly not allies, but rivals.
      • vanderZwan 9y ago
        The claim was that Facebook/Google enable populism, not that they have populist agendas of their own.
    • pdpi 9y ago
• ataturk 9y ago
  That's the first thing that guy has said that isn't totally batshit insane. But yes, am always suspicious of that guy and his motives--there's just too many allegations flying around about him and his organization keeps getting disinvited from whole countries. Vote tampering in the US? Media agenda-setting?
• smhg 9y ago
  To bring some counterweight to all the hatred towards George Soros: A recent Freakonomics Radio show taught me he is a skilled Esperanto speaker. Esperanto enthusiasts generally belong to the more altruist type of people. This might or might not apply to him, but I considered this a sign he probably means well. Edit: I see he learned it as a child from his father. I guess in that case it says little about his personality.
  • ra1n85 9y ago
    Does that really provide a counterweight to his role in Ukraine's recent conflict (which resulted in thousands of deaths)?
    • kirRoyale 9y ago
      Or to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday
      • nradov 9y ago
        George Soros didn't do anything wrong on Black Wednesday. Rather he did the world a service by helping to destroy an obsolete and unsustainable financial system that was actually harming the world's economy. If Soros hadn't done it then someone else would have done the same thing.
        • philipwhiuk 9y ago
          > If Soros hadn't done it then someone else would have done the same thing. That's a terrible moral defence.
          • nradov 9y ago
            Morality has nothing to do with it in this particular case. When something is unsustainable it will eventually stop one way or another.
  • 9y ago
• pcora 9y ago
  We are seeing more and more news and speeches like that recently. While I agree with a lot of them, in terms that these big players are really bad for society, I keep thinking, what is making all of this to be published now? Who is actually behind that? If FB / Google fall, if the web with ads as we have today fall, who will get a ton of money? Some of it might be a trend as we are seeing a lot of books, paid articles about focus, ditching social networks, etc, but I dunno if that is the trend or just a bi-product of the articles in the big media.
  • Bucephalus355 9y ago
    I would say that to some extent it’s always been there. At different times, the public is more or less willing to hear certain arguments. So arguments that only existed in say academia or quarterly political journals are now allowed to flow into more “regular” news sources. Also, it doesn’t help that now Google / Facebook are hated by both the left and the right. Usually you can survive for a while by playing both one side off of another. Very quickly though they got surrounded surrounded on all sides, like the Germans at Stalingrad, and there is no way out, and the vise grows tighter everyday.
• zdfjkhiuj 9y ago
  He's right, but I don't like that he's the person saying this. Our society has a serious problem with giving too much weight to the opinions of rich people and celebrities. Soros is not an expert on anything except investing. No one should care about what he thinks. I hate the fact that George Soros saying this is news but all the real experts are largely ignored by the press. I see the same thing with pretty much everything Elon Musk says. He's very rich, so whenever he makes some asinine comment about transportation or AI or tunnel boring every news agency is all over it.
• ojbyrne 9y ago
  I kind of feel like a billionaire calling anyone or anything a threat to society (in the sense of communal support) is very much a case of Pot Kettle Black.
• jlebrech 9y ago
  Takes one to know one.
• diegomsana 9y ago
  Says the guy who bankrupt 3rd world country central banks just because he could.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• z0ltan 9y ago
  Fuck George Soros - destroyer of sovereign nations and a full blown murderer.
• qbaqbaqba 9y ago
  Yup, and mr. Soros is such a nice guy. It's manipulating the society a bad thing, not the tools the bad guys use. Social media democratized manipulating the society, made it cheaper, that's all.
• halis 9y ago
  https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PnRiGs3wYPg/movieposter.jpg https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PnRiGs3wYPg/movieposter.jpg
• Dowwie 9y ago
  A world famous hedge fund manager who made a fortune betting on the right side of billions of dollars worth of trades calls tech companies a menace to society. Please, do tell.
• ilaksh 9y ago
  It seems inevitable to me that these monopolies on search and social (and in other areas) will be replaced by something less centralized/subject to surveillance/propaganda and more sane and decentralized. We need open distributed, flexible, evolvable but also on some level holistic software protocols and systems that can be widely deployed rather than giant servers/ platforms controlled by for-profit companies in league with over-powered government. See r/rad_decentralization on Reddit.
• mrtweetyhack 9y ago
  kettle
• darepublic 9y ago
  George soros himself seems pretty menacing to me