11 ms·

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 fundin

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
  > 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. Not that I'm agreeing with the OP, but their point is subtler: Soros has his own tools for enabling whatever populist movements he wants to start. Shutting down Facebook's/Google's ability to empower populist movements denies others that same power, so it's of benefit to him (by letting him alone have that power).
  - vanderZwan 9y ago
    You are right, but that still does not apply to this situation. While decentralisation of populism would take power away from centralised influencers, Soros is not arguing against this decentralisation. Quite the opposite. The internet has new forms of influencing power that the previous media did not have. What he warns against is the centralisation of those powers in the hands of a few players, and the possibility of these players working together with totalitarian governments to create a dystopian surveillance state (personally, what I am even more freaked out about is the idea of a decentralised totalitarian surveillance state - there was a recent Wired article on how China is experimenting with this). The claim that Soros has a "strong states are fascist"-rhetoric does not make much sense either. This is what he actually says in the article: > “The internet monopolies have neither the will nor the inclination to protect society against the consequences of their actions. That turns them into a menace and it falls to the regulatory authorities to protect society against them,” There are no business incentives for Facebook and Google to clean up their act, so he explicitly calls for more regulation. How is that not asking for a strong government? Of course, that's not what GP meant with "strong states". His "strong states are fascist" claim is that weird kind of self-denial that you typically see with people defending fascist governmental actions, but not wanting to be called fascist. It typically plays out like this: person A argues that "government X is fascist, because A, B and C", where A, B and C are typically human rights violations carried out by X. Then person B, who is pro-X, reasons "But A, B and C are ways for our state to be strong! X is not fascist, you are just against strong states!" No, person A isn't against strong states. Person B just has ridiculous definitions of what a strong state is. The governments of the Nordic countries enforce a ton of regulation on companies within it. I would consider that a strong government. Few would call it fascist. Person B would probably call it weak.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- narrator 9y ago
  >Did you catch the part about him being a Jew who survived Nazi-occupied Hungary? Soros worked for the Nazis during the occupation and even remembered the time fondly, so he's not above violating the rights of others if it serves his own interests.
  - zoul 9y ago
    One would hope you would automatically support such a claim with some proof?
  - vanderZwan 9y ago
    Either do your homework, or if you did, stop pulling things out of context as if you don't know any better: > Soros posed as the Christian godson of an official of the collaborationist Hungarian government's Ministry of Agriculture, who himself had a Jewish wife in hiding. > Tivadar not only saved his immediate family but also many other Hungarian Jews, and George would later write that 1944 had been "the happiest [year] of his life," for it had given him the opportunity to witness his father's heroism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros Hiding with a pretend-collaborator who saved many Jews is not "working with the Nazis" On top of that, it is crass and naive at best to compare the current xenophobia of nationalists, to having to survive a fascist dictatorship whose officials can kill you any time they feel like it simply because you have a certain ethnicity. In practice it comes across more like a bully trying to paint himself as the victim.
    - yters 9y ago
      I too had fallen prey to the anti-Soro propaganda, thinking he raided rich Jewish houses as a child. Appears from the article this is incorrect.
      - vanderZwan 9y ago
        But you're open to being corrected at least. All else being equal, those who have the least difficulty with admitting they are wrong, are wrong the least often.
guy98238710 9y ago
This sounds like a rant by someone under influence of Hungary's hate campaign against Soros. The fact is that Hungarian government is dismantling democracy and both EU and Soros are right in pointing that out. And while immigration is a matter of national sovereignty, the attitudes towards Muslim immigrants in eastern Europe are driven by nothing but pure xenophobia.
- jamesblonde 9y ago
  Right on. The government in Hungary are scandalous in their treatment of immigrants and their own Roma people. And to think, it was only 13 years ago we let them into the EU. When, in turn, people on their doorstep in trouble come knocking, the door is firmly slammed in their face.
  - PopsiclePete 9y ago
    Eastern European and Western European countries' past history and experience is very different from one another. And events that happened 600 years ago influence that world-view to this day. The way an "enlightened" Frenchman or Italian might view Turkey is very, very different from how a Bulgarian (such as myself) or Serb would view them. As to who's more "correct" in their view, well - that's a whole different subject. These are complex issues and calling Hungary a bunch of racist twats is exactly the same as what Hungarians are doing to "refugees", who, interestingly enough, are disproportionately young men, in good physical condition, running away from countries that are not Syria or otherwise in a state of war. Some of the photographs I've seen of the border crossing show a distinct and very noticeable lack of women and children. And that in itself is also a very interesting subject we could debate for hours.
    - s2g 9y ago
      > Some of the photographs I've seen of the border crossing and you trust those photos?
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
kpdxxx 9y ago
I can't believe HN tolerates this apologism of terrible propaganda in Eastern Europe. He isn't 'unpopular' in Eastern Europe, political movements (read: Orban and friends) are weaponizing antisemitism just like 70 years ago.
AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
What would have happened in WWII without nationalist, strong states of USA and USRR? If there were no strong states then you get warlords and constant conflict, which is preferable?
spyder 9y ago
> 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 social media which thwart his vision. Uh.. he can pay for media campaigns on Facebook too, just like many others are doing it with the "fake news".
- ethbro 9y ago
  I'd guess his position is more that nobody can buy or control changes to Facebook's ranking system, other than Facebook. Which, even if Facebook decides to forgo profits in favor of "good", doesn't preclude a government passing a law that "All social media sites much prefer regime news stories over anything else."
guy98238710 9y ago
What the heck does "he is unpopular with nationalist governments in Eastern Europe" mean anyway? He is disliked by Hungarian government, because he is an obstacle on their path to greater power. That's it. You are making it sound like the whole eastern Europe doesn't like Soros.
- samsonradu 9y ago
  I do see mentions of Soros from time to time in the local press (Romania). Usually happens when bigger institutions can’t be publicly blamed for interference in internal politics. There’s even satire material which I find hilarious where he’s blamed for the cold weather and stuff like that.
bhouston 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. I think you are falling into the fairly common "George Soros is evil" narrative and it causing you not to listen to what Soros actually is saying in this particular case. Soros actually is focusing on three well established points that others also regularly make - these are quotes from the article: (1) “This is particularly nefarious because social media companies influence how people think and behave without them even being aware of it. This has far-reaching adverse consequences on the functioning of democracy, particularly on the integrity of elections.” (2) In addition to skewing democracy, social media companies “deceive their users by manipulating their attention and directing it towards their own commercial purposes” and “deliberately engineer addiction to the services they provide”. The latter, he said, “can be very harmful, particularly for adolescents”. (3) 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. He isn't talking at all about social movements or populism on Facebook or Google, not at all. Remember that those are often outside of those platforms generally these days, such as Telegram in Iran or Twitter. I feel like your comment is bringing in an axe to grind because of other grievances with Soros, rather than dealing with what he is actually saying in this particular article.
- cgb223 9y ago
  So maybe it’s a pot and kettle situation here. At least for the first two points, Soros does the same thing: 1) George Soros also tries to manipulate how the public thinks and feels with his media campaigns 2) he manipulates people’s attention to focus on his political interests Not saying either are particularly in the right for doing these things but it’s a little funny that this is so alarming for him, a major political donor and influencer
  - bhouston 9y ago
    I guess I am not currently litigating whether Soros is evil or not. I think his points are real and others also endorse them. I guess this is sort of a weird article, just saying what others have said but this time repeating it because the source, Soros, is unique and for some has more authority because is very wealthy. Basically nothing is new in the criticisms.
meri_dian 9y ago
Facebook doesn't really enable populism as much as it centralizes on populism. On a common platform, opinions and news can spread very quickly. Faster than people have time to rationally digest and or to determine what they're reading is accurate or not. Facebook is really a perfect tool for people like Soros. You can promote whatever news or opinion you want if you have the money, targeting whichever group you want. Anyone with a big enough bank account can take advantage of this centralized platform to influence people on a vast scale.
mc32 9y ago
I find it interesting that in past years there was a call for self determination of the people. But that was turned around and now attacked by the same people who now favor globalism and want to impose their globalist view on countries. Not sure how successful they will be imposing this view on China and a growing India though.
- oculusthrift 9y ago
  i mean self determination was never really followed. see: vietnam, korea, iran, cuba.. and dozens of other wars or coups to overthrow self determined governments.
  - mc32 9y ago
    All of the ones you did mention did follow self determination. Otherwise it's saying the US didn't follow self determination, because we had to fight the British. Or the USSR didn't follow self determination because the actively had to counter the US and the west. No, i think all those mentioned did follow self determination, ultimately. But now the people who championed it no longer denounce imperialism but instead promote a new imperialism, globalization.
    - oculusthrift 9y ago
      i mean the us never really supported self determination when it was at odds with self interest
  - Paradigma11 9y ago
    I dont see how your argument applies to vietnam or korea. Please elaborate.
specialist 9y ago
So the biggest criticism of Soros is that he's not as effective as the Koch brothers, the Mercers, Robert Murdoch...?
- oculusthrift 9y ago
  yep. and it helps that he’s jewish because it plays into a lot of anti semitic conspiracies. just funny because the government is actually 100 pct controlled by the people you mentioned right now. i’ve never seen soros be nearly as powerful as mercer’s, koch’s, and adelson
  - bobthechef 9y ago
    FWIW, Soros has himself been accused of anti-Semitism by the AD, among others.
    - goialoq 9y ago
      Are you referring to this? http://www.rense.com/general44/soros.htm http://www.rense.com/general44/soros.htm The ADL complains that any statement that Jews contribute to anti-Semitic feelings, is anti-Semitic. This is also a tactic that right-wing Israeli politicians use to deflect criticism.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > FWIW, Soros has himself been accused of anti-Semitism by the AD Do you mean the ADL? Citation? Because googling "ADL Soros" finds lots of examples of the ADL condemning attacks on Soros as anti-Semitic, but nothing I can find credibly sourced of them condemning Soros as anti-Semitic.
oculusthrift 9y ago
funny how the anti-semitic george soros propaganda is so prevalent. yes, a jewish billionaire secretly runs the world. meanwhile the koch’s and mercer’s own the us govt wholesale.
- Dirlewanger 9y ago
  Funny how you're the only person to bring up his Jewishness.
  - kadenshep 9y ago
    They're bringing it up, just not by name. It's anti-Semitic conspiracy theory accessories. It's garbage.
rdtsc 9y ago
> his billions funding organizations that seek to start populist movements that promote his values and narratives. I have seen a reversal on people's attitude on Soros in Eastern Europe. Initially he was seen as a benefactor, just someone wanting to bring openness and promote democracy to various parts of the world. Eventually people realized he brings his own version / vision of "openness" and the end goals of his NGOs and movements do not necessarily align with the interests of the country they operate it. Not that the interests of the local government align or are beneficial to the local populace, either but that doesn't automatically make his influence a positive thing either. (The enemy of my enemy is not automatically my friend, I might just have 2 enemies now).
- d1zzy 9y ago
  I would say that's because Eastern Europe has changed, to the better, and ironically in some regard because of his previous contributions. When Eastern Europe was still largely communist, his ideas of government and society (even if you don't subscribe entirely to them) were much better than the systems in place at the time. So of course everyone loved him. Nowadays with much of Eastern Europe having pretty decent democratic societies (lots of problems still and the Russian influence has grown a lot lately) his ideas aren't seen as a pure "positive" contribution but more like a variation with its own pros and cons of the systems already in place. Personally (like I said elsewhere in the thread) I own much of my professional life to one of his foundations and as such in my book he is a hero and a person that had a huge positive contribution on my life.
  - bobthechef 9y ago
    Certainly, many of the conspiracy theories are silly, but it is simply a matter of documented fact and common knowledge that Soros funds political movements in Central/Eastern European (CEE) countries that would not have otherwise received that support in their own countries, funneling money toward political causes that emerge out of nowhere. That sounds a lot like foreign meddling to me. He was also active in the region before the fall of the Berlin Wall, propping up those he saw fit to prop up. The transformation process that CEE underwent from socialist, centrally planned economies to free market, democratic republics is a complicated affair and with time, we've been learning more about the kinds of backroom deals and controversial changes that went on. It is fallacious to say, as some do, that because these countries are better off today than they were under Russian-sponsored communist rule, there's nothing wrong with the way these countries transitioned or with the resulting status quo. It's also silly to characterize everyone who opposes Soros a fascist (the fascist rhetoric is getting tiresome and will ultimately dilute the power of the term when applies to actual fascists). These are false dichotomies. Of course, Soros is not alone in this regard, though he is an important figure. Piketty has called CEE "foreign-owned countries" given the extremely outsized control of the wealth and resources of these countries by Western companies (consider that 80% of the media in Poland are owned by foreign companies, mostly German). When foreign companies dominate the capital of a country and (usually through capital) influence the politics in a country, this is bad. Very bad. Then there are the problematic values Soros promotes. It's one thing to share what you believe with others and allow them the space to consider your views. It's another to insinuate yourself and your views through a web of NGOs and other organizations.
d1zzy 9y ago
I owe most of my professional life to one of Soros' foundations that donated computers (with a Linux server mind you) to poor cities in a poor country many many years ago. Ironically, I ended up working for one of the companies he's complaining about so I don't know how to feel about this. But I do agree that populism is generally bad (or nationalism, or religion etc), generally any idealism that places other things as more important over human life. Of course, the irony is some of these movements start from humanistic values, but end up losing their perspective.
- bobthechef 9y ago
  > so I don't know how to feel about this How about honestly evaluating the situation? People will often criticize Google, Facebook, etc, until they work for them, after which they rationalize. It really isn't relevant whether you worked for Soros or not. What matters is what's true. If what he's saying is true, then you have to deal with it.
s2g 9y ago
> "nationalism is racism" and the corralary "strong states are fascist" Which is entirely backed up by the history of ultra-nationalist states.
- bildung 9y ago
  No. "All fascist states were strong states" does not imply "all strong states are fascist." Trivial counterexample: "All bananas are fruit" does not imply "All fruits are bananas".

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
> 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. Not that I'm agreeing with the OP, but their point is subtler: Soros has his own tools for enabling whatever populist movements he wants to start. Shutting down Facebook's/Google's ability to empower populist movements denies others that same power, so it's of benefit to him (by letting him alone have that power).
- vanderZwan 9y ago
  You are right, but that still does not apply to this situation. While decentralisation of populism would take power away from centralised influencers, Soros is not arguing against this decentralisation. Quite the opposite. The internet has new forms of influencing power that the previous media did not have. What he warns against is the centralisation of those powers in the hands of a few players, and the possibility of these players working together with totalitarian governments to create a dystopian surveillance state (personally, what I am even more freaked out about is the idea of a decentralised totalitarian surveillance state - there was a recent Wired article on how China is experimenting with this). The claim that Soros has a "strong states are fascist"-rhetoric does not make much sense either. This is what he actually says in the article: > “The internet monopolies have neither the will nor the inclination to protect society against the consequences of their actions. That turns them into a menace and it falls to the regulatory authorities to protect society against them,” There are no business incentives for Facebook and Google to clean up their act, so he explicitly calls for more regulation. How is that not asking for a strong government? Of course, that's not what GP meant with "strong states". His "strong states are fascist" claim is that weird kind of self-denial that you typically see with people defending fascist governmental actions, but not wanting to be called fascist. It typically plays out like this: person A argues that "government X is fascist, because A, B and C", where A, B and C are typically human rights violations carried out by X. Then person B, who is pro-X, reasons "But A, B and C are ways for our state to be strong! X is not fascist, you are just against strong states!" No, person A isn't against strong states. Person B just has ridiculous definitions of what a strong state is. The governments of the Nordic countries enforce a ton of regulation on companies within it. I would consider that a strong government. Few would call it fascist. Person B would probably call it weak.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
narrator 9y ago
>Did you catch the part about him being a Jew who survived Nazi-occupied Hungary? Soros worked for the Nazis during the occupation and even remembered the time fondly, so he's not above violating the rights of others if it serves his own interests.
- zoul 9y ago
  One would hope you would automatically support such a claim with some proof?
- vanderZwan 9y ago
  Either do your homework, or if you did, stop pulling things out of context as if you don't know any better: > Soros posed as the Christian godson of an official of the collaborationist Hungarian government's Ministry of Agriculture, who himself had a Jewish wife in hiding. > Tivadar not only saved his immediate family but also many other Hungarian Jews, and George would later write that 1944 had been "the happiest [year] of his life," for it had given him the opportunity to witness his father's heroism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros Hiding with a pretend-collaborator who saved many Jews is not "working with the Nazis" On top of that, it is crass and naive at best to compare the current xenophobia of nationalists, to having to survive a fascist dictatorship whose officials can kill you any time they feel like it simply because you have a certain ethnicity. In practice it comes across more like a bully trying to paint himself as the victim.
  - yters 9y ago
    I too had fallen prey to the anti-Soro propaganda, thinking he raided rich Jewish houses as a child. Appears from the article this is incorrect.
    - vanderZwan 9y ago
      But you're open to being corrected at least. All else being equal, those who have the least difficulty with admitting they are wrong, are wrong the least often.

guy98238710 9y ago

This sounds like a rant by someone under influence of Hungary's hate campaign against Soros. The fact is that Hungarian government is dismantling democracy and both EU and Soros are right in pointing that out. And while immigration is a matter of national sovereignty, the attitudes towards Muslim immigrants in eastern Europe are driven by nothing but pure xenophobia.

jamesblonde 9y ago
Right on. The government in Hungary are scandalous in their treatment of immigrants and their own Roma people. And to think, it was only 13 years ago we let them into the EU. When, in turn, people on their doorstep in trouble come knocking, the door is firmly slammed in their face.
- PopsiclePete 9y ago
  Eastern European and Western European countries' past history and experience is very different from one another. And events that happened 600 years ago influence that world-view to this day. The way an "enlightened" Frenchman or Italian might view Turkey is very, very different from how a Bulgarian (such as myself) or Serb would view them. As to who's more "correct" in their view, well - that's a whole different subject. These are complex issues and calling Hungary a bunch of racist twats is exactly the same as what Hungarians are doing to "refugees", who, interestingly enough, are disproportionately young men, in good physical condition, running away from countries that are not Syria or otherwise in a state of war. Some of the photographs I've seen of the border crossing show a distinct and very noticeable lack of women and children. And that in itself is also a very interesting subject we could debate for hours.
  - s2g 9y ago
    > Some of the photographs I've seen of the border crossing and you trust those photos?
    - dragonwriter 9y ago

kpdxxx 9y ago

I can't believe HN tolerates this apologism of terrible propaganda in Eastern Europe. He isn't 'unpopular' in Eastern Europe, political movements (read: Orban and friends) are weaponizing antisemitism just like 70 years ago.

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago

What would have happened in WWII without nationalist, strong states of USA and USRR? If there were no strong states then you get warlords and constant conflict, which is preferable?

spyder 9y ago

> 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 social media which thwart his vision. Uh.. he can pay for media campaigns on Facebook too, just like many others are doing it with the "fake news".

ethbro 9y ago
I'd guess his position is more that nobody can buy or control changes to Facebook's ranking system, other than Facebook. Which, even if Facebook decides to forgo profits in favor of "good", doesn't preclude a government passing a law that "All social media sites much prefer regime news stories over anything else."

guy98238710 9y ago

What the heck does "he is unpopular with nationalist governments in Eastern Europe" mean anyway? He is disliked by Hungarian government, because he is an obstacle on their path to greater power. That's it. You are making it sound like the whole eastern Europe doesn't like Soros.

samsonradu 9y ago
I do see mentions of Soros from time to time in the local press (Romania). Usually happens when bigger institutions can’t be publicly blamed for interference in internal politics. There’s even satire material which I find hilarious where he’s blamed for the cold weather and stuff like that.

bhouston 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. I think you are falling into the fairly common "George Soros is evil" narrative and it causing you not to listen to what Soros actually is saying in this particular case. Soros actually is focusing on three well established points that others also regularly make - these are quotes from the article: (1) “This is particularly nefarious because social media companies influence how people think and behave without them even being aware of it. This has far-reaching adverse consequences on the functioning of democracy, particularly on the integrity of elections.” (2) In addition to skewing democracy, social media companies “deceive their users by manipulating their attention and directing it towards their own commercial purposes” and “deliberately engineer addiction to the services they provide”. The latter, he said, “can be very harmful, particularly for adolescents”. (3) 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. He isn't talking at all about social movements or populism on Facebook or Google, not at all. Remember that those are often outside of those platforms generally these days, such as Telegram in Iran or Twitter. I feel like your comment is bringing in an axe to grind because of other grievances with Soros, rather than dealing with what he is actually saying in this particular article.

cgb223 9y ago
So maybe it’s a pot and kettle situation here. At least for the first two points, Soros does the same thing: 1) George Soros also tries to manipulate how the public thinks and feels with his media campaigns 2) he manipulates people’s attention to focus on his political interests Not saying either are particularly in the right for doing these things but it’s a little funny that this is so alarming for him, a major political donor and influencer
- bhouston 9y ago
  I guess I am not currently litigating whether Soros is evil or not. I think his points are real and others also endorse them. I guess this is sort of a weird article, just saying what others have said but this time repeating it because the source, Soros, is unique and for some has more authority because is very wealthy. Basically nothing is new in the criticisms.

meri_dian 9y ago

Facebook doesn't really enable populism as much as it centralizes on populism. On a common platform, opinions and news can spread very quickly. Faster than people have time to rationally digest and or to determine what they're reading is accurate or not. Facebook is really a perfect tool for people like Soros. You can promote whatever news or opinion you want if you have the money, targeting whichever group you want. Anyone with a big enough bank account can take advantage of this centralized platform to influence people on a vast scale.

mc32 9y ago

I find it interesting that in past years there was a call for self determination of the people. But that was turned around and now attacked by the same people who now favor globalism and want to impose their globalist view on countries. Not sure how successful they will be imposing this view on China and a growing India though.

oculusthrift 9y ago
i mean self determination was never really followed. see: vietnam, korea, iran, cuba.. and dozens of other wars or coups to overthrow self determined governments.
- mc32 9y ago
  All of the ones you did mention did follow self determination. Otherwise it's saying the US didn't follow self determination, because we had to fight the British. Or the USSR didn't follow self determination because the actively had to counter the US and the west. No, i think all those mentioned did follow self determination, ultimately. But now the people who championed it no longer denounce imperialism but instead promote a new imperialism, globalization.
  - oculusthrift 9y ago
    i mean the us never really supported self determination when it was at odds with self interest
- Paradigma11 9y ago
  I dont see how your argument applies to vietnam or korea. Please elaborate.

specialist 9y ago

So the biggest criticism of Soros is that he's not as effective as the Koch brothers, the Mercers, Robert Murdoch...?

oculusthrift 9y ago
yep. and it helps that he’s jewish because it plays into a lot of anti semitic conspiracies. just funny because the government is actually 100 pct controlled by the people you mentioned right now. i’ve never seen soros be nearly as powerful as mercer’s, koch’s, and adelson
- bobthechef 9y ago
  FWIW, Soros has himself been accused of anti-Semitism by the AD, among others.
  - goialoq 9y ago
    Are you referring to this? http://www.rense.com/general44/soros.htm http://www.rense.com/general44/soros.htm The ADL complains that any statement that Jews contribute to anti-Semitic feelings, is anti-Semitic. This is also a tactic that right-wing Israeli politicians use to deflect criticism.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > FWIW, Soros has himself been accused of anti-Semitism by the AD Do you mean the ADL? Citation? Because googling "ADL Soros" finds lots of examples of the ADL condemning attacks on Soros as anti-Semitic, but nothing I can find credibly sourced of them condemning Soros as anti-Semitic.

oculusthrift 9y ago

funny how the anti-semitic george soros propaganda is so prevalent. yes, a jewish billionaire secretly runs the world. meanwhile the koch’s and mercer’s own the us govt wholesale.

Dirlewanger 9y ago
Funny how you're the only person to bring up his Jewishness.
- kadenshep 9y ago
  They're bringing it up, just not by name. It's anti-Semitic conspiracy theory accessories. It's garbage.

rdtsc 9y ago

> his billions funding organizations that seek to start populist movements that promote his values and narratives. I have seen a reversal on people's attitude on Soros in Eastern Europe. Initially he was seen as a benefactor, just someone wanting to bring openness and promote democracy to various parts of the world. Eventually people realized he brings his own version / vision of "openness" and the end goals of his NGOs and movements do not necessarily align with the interests of the country they operate it. Not that the interests of the local government align or are beneficial to the local populace, either but that doesn't automatically make his influence a positive thing either. (The enemy of my enemy is not automatically my friend, I might just have 2 enemies now).

d1zzy 9y ago
I would say that's because Eastern Europe has changed, to the better, and ironically in some regard because of his previous contributions. When Eastern Europe was still largely communist, his ideas of government and society (even if you don't subscribe entirely to them) were much better than the systems in place at the time. So of course everyone loved him. Nowadays with much of Eastern Europe having pretty decent democratic societies (lots of problems still and the Russian influence has grown a lot lately) his ideas aren't seen as a pure "positive" contribution but more like a variation with its own pros and cons of the systems already in place. Personally (like I said elsewhere in the thread) I own much of my professional life to one of his foundations and as such in my book he is a hero and a person that had a huge positive contribution on my life.
- bobthechef 9y ago
  Certainly, many of the conspiracy theories are silly, but it is simply a matter of documented fact and common knowledge that Soros funds political movements in Central/Eastern European (CEE) countries that would not have otherwise received that support in their own countries, funneling money toward political causes that emerge out of nowhere. That sounds a lot like foreign meddling to me. He was also active in the region before the fall of the Berlin Wall, propping up those he saw fit to prop up. The transformation process that CEE underwent from socialist, centrally planned economies to free market, democratic republics is a complicated affair and with time, we've been learning more about the kinds of backroom deals and controversial changes that went on. It is fallacious to say, as some do, that because these countries are better off today than they were under Russian-sponsored communist rule, there's nothing wrong with the way these countries transitioned or with the resulting status quo. It's also silly to characterize everyone who opposes Soros a fascist (the fascist rhetoric is getting tiresome and will ultimately dilute the power of the term when applies to actual fascists). These are false dichotomies. Of course, Soros is not alone in this regard, though he is an important figure. Piketty has called CEE "foreign-owned countries" given the extremely outsized control of the wealth and resources of these countries by Western companies (consider that 80% of the media in Poland are owned by foreign companies, mostly German). When foreign companies dominate the capital of a country and (usually through capital) influence the politics in a country, this is bad. Very bad. Then there are the problematic values Soros promotes. It's one thing to share what you believe with others and allow them the space to consider your views. It's another to insinuate yourself and your views through a web of NGOs and other organizations.

d1zzy 9y ago

I owe most of my professional life to one of Soros' foundations that donated computers (with a Linux server mind you) to poor cities in a poor country many many years ago. Ironically, I ended up working for one of the companies he's complaining about so I don't know how to feel about this. But I do agree that populism is generally bad (or nationalism, or religion etc), generally any idealism that places other things as more important over human life. Of course, the irony is some of these movements start from humanistic values, but end up losing their perspective.

bobthechef 9y ago
> so I don't know how to feel about this How about honestly evaluating the situation? People will often criticize Google, Facebook, etc, until they work for them, after which they rationalize. It really isn't relevant whether you worked for Soros or not. What matters is what's true. If what he's saying is true, then you have to deal with it.

s2g 9y ago

> "nationalism is racism" and the corralary "strong states are fascist" Which is entirely backed up by the history of ultra-nationalist states.

bildung 9y ago
No. "All fascist states were strong states" does not imply "all strong states are fascist." Trivial counterexample: "All bananas are fruit" does not imply "All fruits are bananas".