4 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 fundi
by 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 agoSo 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 agoI 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.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- z0ltan 9y agoYou must be demented.
- ethbro 9y ago> You must be demented. We strive for a higher level of discourse at HN.
- thithi 9y agoHis points are real, but so they apply for him. The evil part is he first start public misinformation campaigns in mainstream media. Now that social media does the same thing effectively in a decentralized manner which he can't control, he is crying wolf.
- ben010783 9y agoIn the US, those kind of messages are usually more overt and organizations are legally required to disclose some info about the organization that sponsored the ads. You can (could?) kind of get away with influencing people anonymously using Facebook: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-election-facebook.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-e...
- ams6110 9y agoYeah I am no fan of Soros but in this case I mostly agree.
- pacala 9y agoThere is a special place in Hell for those who made surveillance profitable. The surveillance apparatus of yesterday’s Eastern Europe tyrants was too inefficient and collapsed under its own weight. Leave it to adtech to build economically viable surveillance, which can and will be cooped by governments.
- AndrewKemendo 9y agoSurveillance is too broad of a term. For example, at what level do you consider user tracking NOT surveillance, and why? Are cookies surveillance? IP Logging? Is UserAgent surveillance?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- ethbro 9y agoThat which allows mass surveilling? The insidious thing is that sufficient storage + innocous tech can be transformed into surveillance... when everything's aggregated.
- AndrewKemendo 9y agosufficient storage + innocous[sic] tech can be transformed into surveillance Right, but it seems then you're saying that surveillance is more of an intention than it is a set of technologies. Some technologies make those intentions easier to act upon certainly, but the concept of "surveillance" needs to be defined better so that we can recognize what specifically makes it sinister.
- carapace 9y ago"Surveillance" is in the intent. If I collect user tracking data and that data leaks, or the government requisitions it, does it not then become surveillance data? FWIW, I have convinced myself that ubiquitous surveillance is pretty much inevitable as a side-effect to automation of infrastructure, so the question is how to manage it (rather than whether.) Right now we are seeing a split between "Morlocks" and "Eloi" where there is a huge gap between the understanding of the folks working at these AI-developing super-silos and the understanding of Joe and Jane User on the street.
- hinkley 9y agoI don’t have a horse in this race but I’m fascinated by the dynamic your back and forth represents. Have you ever heard the old bit about how “a lie is best hidden between two truths”? I think a lot of people steer clear of truth from someone they don’t trust because they know what the next thing will be. It’s counter to another saying, “if a thief tells you murder is bad, does that make him wrong?” But life is complicated.