7 ms·

LinkedIn Co-Founder Apologizes for Deception in Alabama Senate Race

79 points by rm2889 8y ago

code4tee 8y ago
Basically, he’s too rich to know where he’s spending his money. A good problem to have, but clearly he recognized this was a big screwup and he fessed up. Not more one can ask for.
- pm90 8y ago
  Quite refreshing to see this after the fb brouhaha
  - stochastic_monk 8y ago
    Somehow another group of political actives using such tactics is much more frightening than refreshing to me because of what it seems to suggest lies ahead.
- fake-name 8y ago
  > Basically, he’s too rich to know where he’s spending his money. If you have that problem, you have too much money. I've periodically considered a limit on the money people can have. I think if we limited people to a maximum wealth, after which taxes were 90+%, it'd go a fair way to fixing a lot of the issues with the world. Something like 10 million dollars seems reasonable. (Note: this ignores all the ways people would weasel around any real-world legislation. Please don't argue about that, it's a thought experiment.)
  - icelancer 8y ago
    Can corporations have unlimited money? 10 million barely makes payroll for some medium-large businesses. And a thought experiment isn't not subject to discussion... otherwise why post it?
    - fake-name 8y ago
      I'm open to discussion, just not "this is stupid because people would hire tax lawyers which would ruin it". I know that, but it's a fanciful idea. Anyways, a limit on personal wealth would need to be accompanied by a limit on corporate wealth (or corporate size, or some other lever). Really, the thing that it all would require to make work would be the ability to make things illegal on the basis of intent (e.g. intent to circumvent), which gets sufficiently close to thought-crime that makes me uncomfortable (and realistically makes the idea nothing but a pipe-dream). However, without some mechanism for preemptively dealing with rule-lawyering and such, I can't see any way to actively improve society with such a measure. It'd be nice if there was a sort of duck-typing for laws. If it quacks like a tax haven, and walks like a tax haven, the technical definition of it is irrelevant, and it should be treated as a tax haven/whatever mechanism for tax avoidance. Unfortunately, that sort of rule-of-law requires a significant value-judgement by the judiciary that is untenable given the current legal structure, at least in the US.
    - r00fus 8y ago
      Sure, as long as they aren't using massive tax avoidance schemes to not pay the taxes. Also they aren't persons.
  - abapologist 8y ago
    Don’t you think this would have an impact on innovation? The chance at getting mega rich drives people to take big risks.
    - fake-name 8y ago
      No, I don't primarily because you have a similar chance to getting hit and killed by a car. Does that have an impact on innovation? Really, I've never met anyone who is actively "hustling" (or whatever the bullshit flavor term-of-the-week is) to try to make mega-millions who's someone I actually think would make decent decisions with those mega-millions. Everyone I've met who I think would actually make decent choices just wants a comfortable life, maybe a bigger house and a few more vacations a year, and to do something interesting for the sake of it being interesting.
      - icelancer 8y ago
        > No, I don't primarily because you have a similar chance to getting hit and killed by a car. Does that have an impact on innovation? This is... not a very good comparison for a multitude of reasons. Not the least of which being that not everyone has the same chance of being hit and killed by a car, of course... > Really, I've never met anyone who is actively "hustling" Have you considered that maybe some of the very rich ended up being worth quite a bit of money without that being their explicit goal? I ended up being very successful in my niche without ever dreaming of my company turning into what it is today, or what it may become tomorrow, and I live extremely modestly in a cheap townhome and drive old used cars.
        fake-name 8y ago
        > This is... not a very good comparison for a multitude of reasons. Not the least of which being that not everyone has the same chance of being hit and killed by a car, of course... That's also true for the chances of becoming mega-rich. Can you name any actually successful person who got into the business they're in because they wanted to be come rich, rather then because they were doing something that interested them, and were in the right place a the right time? ------ The point is not that seeking to work in a niche where you are successful isn't valid, it's that there is a point at which point people accruing more money is basically ridiculous. 10 million dollars is a 100 thousand dollars a year for more then my entire lifetime. I live in a ridiculously expensive west-coast town and I'd be more then comfortable on that income. Having more money then that basically serves no purpose for the economy, or civilization at large. Scaling the limit up just becomes more transparently ludicrous. What reasonable lifestyle can consume more then 10 thousand dollars a month!
  - tw04 8y ago
    That was literally tax law in the 1950s.
  - PavlovsCat 8y ago
    > I've periodically considered a limit on the money people can have. Same here, in a similar way, too, much like air friction works -- the faster you're already going, the more energy you need to expend to go even faster (i.e. going from 200 mph to 300 mph requires MUCH less additional than going from 9900 to 10000). But there needn't (and IMO shouldn't) be a hard cutoff.
- icelancer 8y ago
  Your first line is a very uncharitable way of discussing the issue at hand. Reid Hoffman supported a group who he probably did not think was going to use Republican-style disinformation tactics, they did, he found out through reporting, and he stopped. How many businesses do you shop at / organizations do you support that potentially do underhanded things that you aren't tracking because you are busy living your life? I'd guarantee there's at least one doing something ridiculous you are supporting with no knowledge, but because you (or I, or anyone common) aren't among the top 100 richest people in the United States, no one cares what we're up to.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
starik36 8y ago
So he apologizes now that he's been caught? Classy and totally believable.
- lainga 8y ago
  And what is anyone in Hoffman's social circles going to say? "Aw, damnit, Roy Moore could have won if it wasn't for you"?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
brain5ide 8y ago
However misinformation for engagement didn't bother him on LinkedIn.
rhegart 8y ago
Every part of culture, every discussion, everything is a life and death political fight to half the country, whether on the left or the right. In their eyes, if you’re not fighting against the other side you are complicit and the ends justify the means to power.
tossaccount123 8y ago
Interesting how so many leftists who hate the koch brothers and their big money spending are fine with billionaire tech elites throwing their money around But I suppose that's not surprising considering the top 10 richest districts and 73 of the top 100 voted democrat https://finance.yahoo.com/news/midterms-one-party-controls-wealthiest-184200649.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/midterms-one-party-controls-w... Citizens United needs to be overturned ASAP
- alphabettsy 8y ago
  Huh? Overturning Citizens United is a key goal of “leftists”, so much so that Bernie Sanders talked about it continuously during his campaign. The entire GOP continues to vilify Soros though and seem perfectly content with Citizens United.
- toiletfuneral 8y ago
  This is seriously the dumbest comment. How does anyone think actual leftists support centrist liberal billionaires? I’m guessing you were educated in the US (just so you know there are more than 2 possible political positions).
  - dang 8y ago
    We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, then email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
rdtsc 8y ago
> They also used thousands of Twitter accounts to make it appear as if automated Russian bot accounts were following and supporting Mr. Moore, according to an internal report on the project. The apparent Russian support for Mr. Moore drew broad news media coverage. also from https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/12/22/facebook-suspends-five-accounts-including-social-media-researcher-misleading-tactics-alabama-election/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4eb218b514da https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/12/22/faceboo... > Morgan’s efforts have stirred controversy because of his role at New Knowledge, which has helped Senate lawmakers uncover the means in which Russian agents weaponized Facebook, Twitter a So person in charge of detecting "the Russians" couldn't find enough Russians and so he made his own Russians and possibly altered the results of US elections.
austincheney 8y ago
> But at least a few Democrats thought their party could not shun such tactics entirely if others were going to continue to use them. And so the deception arms race has begun. Social media messaging is a toxic influence when centrally managed, inherently anonymous, or publicly accessible.
sidcool 8y ago
Is apology in this case admission of guilt? And if so, can there be judicial intervention?
mindgam3 8y ago
Ironically, the company mentioned in the article for spreading disinformation has the following mission statement: “New Knowledge protects your brand from social media disinformation by identifying fake accounts, fake news, and propaganda campaigns.” Why choose white hat or black hat when you can profit from both sides. Ingenious! —- “The money went to a small group of social media experts that included Jonathon Morgan, the chief executive of New Knowledge, a cybersecurity firm. They created a Facebook page intended to look like the work of conservative Alabamians, and used it to try to split Republicans and promote a conservative write-in candidate to take votes from Mr. Moore. They also used thousands of Twitter accounts to make it appear as if automated Russian bot accounts were following and supporting Mr. Moore, according to an internal report on the project. The apparent Russian support for Mr. Moore drew broad news media coverage.”
juicethecat 8y ago
This actually something that needs to get a special investigator too. Really really disastrous.
- Redoubts 8y ago
  Why a "Special" Investigator? This isn't law enforcement investigating itself.
GoodJokes 8y ago
An apology isn’t good enough. The person has now been shown to be openly hostile to democracy and deceptive. The founder is sorry they got caught. Trust anything he says again at your own peril.

79 points by rm2889 8y ago

Basically, he’s too rich to know where he’s spending his money. A good problem to have, but clearly he recognized this was a big screwup and he fessed up. Not more one can ask for.

pm90 8y ago
Quite refreshing to see this after the fb brouhaha
- stochastic_monk 8y ago
  Somehow another group of political actives using such tactics is much more frightening than refreshing to me because of what it seems to suggest lies ahead.
fake-name 8y ago
> Basically, he’s too rich to know where he’s spending his money. If you have that problem, you have too much money. I've periodically considered a limit on the money people can have. I think if we limited people to a maximum wealth, after which taxes were 90+%, it'd go a fair way to fixing a lot of the issues with the world. Something like 10 million dollars seems reasonable. (Note: this ignores all the ways people would weasel around any real-world legislation. Please don't argue about that, it's a thought experiment.)
- icelancer 8y ago
  Can corporations have unlimited money? 10 million barely makes payroll for some medium-large businesses. And a thought experiment isn't not subject to discussion... otherwise why post it?
  - fake-name 8y ago
    I'm open to discussion, just not "this is stupid because people would hire tax lawyers which would ruin it". I know that, but it's a fanciful idea. Anyways, a limit on personal wealth would need to be accompanied by a limit on corporate wealth (or corporate size, or some other lever). Really, the thing that it all would require to make work would be the ability to make things illegal on the basis of intent (e.g. intent to circumvent), which gets sufficiently close to thought-crime that makes me uncomfortable (and realistically makes the idea nothing but a pipe-dream). However, without some mechanism for preemptively dealing with rule-lawyering and such, I can't see any way to actively improve society with such a measure. It'd be nice if there was a sort of duck-typing for laws. If it quacks like a tax haven, and walks like a tax haven, the technical definition of it is irrelevant, and it should be treated as a tax haven/whatever mechanism for tax avoidance. Unfortunately, that sort of rule-of-law requires a significant value-judgement by the judiciary that is untenable given the current legal structure, at least in the US.
  - r00fus 8y ago
    Sure, as long as they aren't using massive tax avoidance schemes to not pay the taxes. Also they aren't persons.
- abapologist 8y ago
  Don’t you think this would have an impact on innovation? The chance at getting mega rich drives people to take big risks.
  - fake-name 8y ago
    No, I don't primarily because you have a similar chance to getting hit and killed by a car. Does that have an impact on innovation? Really, I've never met anyone who is actively "hustling" (or whatever the bullshit flavor term-of-the-week is) to try to make mega-millions who's someone I actually think would make decent decisions with those mega-millions. Everyone I've met who I think would actually make decent choices just wants a comfortable life, maybe a bigger house and a few more vacations a year, and to do something interesting for the sake of it being interesting.
    - icelancer 8y ago
      > No, I don't primarily because you have a similar chance to getting hit and killed by a car. Does that have an impact on innovation? This is... not a very good comparison for a multitude of reasons. Not the least of which being that not everyone has the same chance of being hit and killed by a car, of course... > Really, I've never met anyone who is actively "hustling" Have you considered that maybe some of the very rich ended up being worth quite a bit of money without that being their explicit goal? I ended up being very successful in my niche without ever dreaming of my company turning into what it is today, or what it may become tomorrow, and I live extremely modestly in a cheap townhome and drive old used cars.
      - fake-name 8y ago
        > This is... not a very good comparison for a multitude of reasons. Not the least of which being that not everyone has the same chance of being hit and killed by a car, of course... That's also true for the chances of becoming mega-rich. Can you name any actually successful person who got into the business they're in because they wanted to be come rich, rather then because they were doing something that interested them, and were in the right place a the right time? ------ The point is not that seeking to work in a niche where you are successful isn't valid, it's that there is a point at which point people accruing more money is basically ridiculous. 10 million dollars is a 100 thousand dollars a year for more then my entire lifetime. I live in a ridiculously expensive west-coast town and I'd be more then comfortable on that income. Having more money then that basically serves no purpose for the economy, or civilization at large. Scaling the limit up just becomes more transparently ludicrous. What reasonable lifestyle can consume more then 10 thousand dollars a month!
- tw04 8y ago
  That was literally tax law in the 1950s.
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  > I've periodically considered a limit on the money people can have. Same here, in a similar way, too, much like air friction works -- the faster you're already going, the more energy you need to expend to go even faster (i.e. going from 200 mph to 300 mph requires MUCH less additional than going from 9900 to 10000). But there needn't (and IMO shouldn't) be a hard cutoff.
icelancer 8y ago
Your first line is a very uncharitable way of discussing the issue at hand. Reid Hoffman supported a group who he probably did not think was going to use Republican-style disinformation tactics, they did, he found out through reporting, and he stopped. How many businesses do you shop at / organizations do you support that potentially do underhanded things that you aren't tracking because you are busy living your life? I'd guarantee there's at least one doing something ridiculous you are supporting with no knowledge, but because you (or I, or anyone common) aren't among the top 100 richest people in the United States, no one cares what we're up to.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

starik36 8y ago

So he apologizes now that he's been caught? Classy and totally believable.

lainga 8y ago
And what is anyone in Hoffman's social circles going to say? "Aw, damnit, Roy Moore could have won if it wasn't for you"?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

brain5ide 8y ago

However misinformation for engagement didn't bother him on LinkedIn.

rhegart 8y ago

Every part of culture, every discussion, everything is a life and death political fight to half the country, whether on the left or the right. In their eyes, if you’re not fighting against the other side you are complicit and the ends justify the means to power.

tossaccount123 8y ago

Interesting how so many leftists who hate the koch brothers and their big money spending are fine with billionaire tech elites throwing their money around But I suppose that's not surprising considering the top 10 richest districts and 73 of the top 100 voted democrat https://finance.yahoo.com/news/midterms-one-party-controls-wealthiest-184200649.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/midterms-one-party-controls-w... Citizens United needs to be overturned ASAP

alphabettsy 8y ago
Huh? Overturning Citizens United is a key goal of “leftists”, so much so that Bernie Sanders talked about it continuously during his campaign. The entire GOP continues to vilify Soros though and seem perfectly content with Citizens United.
toiletfuneral 8y ago
This is seriously the dumbest comment. How does anyone think actual leftists support centrist liberal billionaires? I’m guessing you were educated in the US (just so you know there are more than 2 possible political positions).
- dang 8y ago
  We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, then email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

rdtsc 8y ago

> They also used thousands of Twitter accounts to make it appear as if automated Russian bot accounts were following and supporting Mr. Moore, according to an internal report on the project. The apparent Russian support for Mr. Moore drew broad news media coverage. also from https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/12/22/facebook-suspends-five-accounts-including-social-media-researcher-misleading-tactics-alabama-election/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4eb218b514da https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/12/22/faceboo... > Morgan’s efforts have stirred controversy because of his role at New Knowledge, which has helped Senate lawmakers uncover the means in which Russian agents weaponized Facebook, Twitter a So person in charge of detecting "the Russians" couldn't find enough Russians and so he made his own Russians and possibly altered the results of US elections.

austincheney 8y ago

> But at least a few Democrats thought their party could not shun such tactics entirely if others were going to continue to use them. And so the deception arms race has begun. Social media messaging is a toxic influence when centrally managed, inherently anonymous, or publicly accessible.

sidcool 8y ago

Is apology in this case admission of guilt? And if so, can there be judicial intervention?

mindgam3 8y ago

Ironically, the company mentioned in the article for spreading disinformation has the following mission statement: “New Knowledge protects your brand from social media disinformation by identifying fake accounts, fake news, and propaganda campaigns.” Why choose white hat or black hat when you can profit from both sides. Ingenious! —- “The money went to a small group of social media experts that included Jonathon Morgan, the chief executive of New Knowledge, a cybersecurity firm. They created a Facebook page intended to look like the work of conservative Alabamians, and used it to try to split Republicans and promote a conservative write-in candidate to take votes from Mr. Moore. They also used thousands of Twitter accounts to make it appear as if automated Russian bot accounts were following and supporting Mr. Moore, according to an internal report on the project. The apparent Russian support for Mr. Moore drew broad news media coverage.”

juicethecat 8y ago

This actually something that needs to get a special investigator too. Really really disastrous.

Redoubts 8y ago
Why a "Special" Investigator? This isn't law enforcement investigating itself.

GoodJokes 8y ago

An apology isn’t good enough. The person has now been shown to be openly hostile to democracy and deceptive. The founder is sorry they got caught. Trust anything he says again at your own peril.