3 ms·

As a billionaire your interests are a bigger target for well funded or well organised opponents as well. And you probably have a lot of other ways at your dispo

As a billionaire your interests are a bigger target for well funded or well organised opponents as well. And you probably have a lot of other ways at your disposal to exert influence. So I don't see a net benefit of disinformation specifically for billionaires.

wpietri 7y ago
Billionaires have plenty of ways to fight with other billionaires. Disinformation gives them an advantage over the very large number of non-billionaires.
- fauigerzigerk 7y ago
  Billionaires also have plenty of ways to influence large numbers of non-billionaires. They can own media empires and think tanks, fund/lobby politicians and political movements with armies of volunteers, or become media personalities themselves. I would be interested in an analysis of who funds those troll campaigns. I'd wager billionaires rank very far below governments, political parties and corporations.
  - wpietri 7y ago
    Again, that they have other tools doesn't mean that they want to give up this one. And they're not more likely to just because those groups use it. Indeed, governments and political parties are generally quite solicitous of the interests of the very rich. [1] As, of course, are corporations. [1] https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-...
    - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
      >Again, that they have other tools doesn't mean that they want to give up this one. It means that disinformation is relatively less important to billionaires compared to others. Not sure what the linked article has to do with it. Edit: The reason why I'm even debating this not very important difference is that I feel that structural issues with our political and economic system are too often obscured and trivialised by blaming it all on powerful evil individuals. For instance, billionaires want the companies they own shares in to make as much money as possible. CEOs who measure their success in increasing share prices are therefore incentivised to occasionally break the law. Does that mean billionaires wanted or even told the CEO to break the law? Not necessarily. Does it mean CEOs wouldn't break the law if the shares were owned by a pension fund and not by billionaires? No. So there are more complex structural issues that shouldn't get buried in too much finger pointing at rich individuals. Of course that doesn't mean there are no evil billionaires or that some of them wouldn't like to own a personal troll army. Who knows.

wpietri 7y ago

Billionaires have plenty of ways to fight with other billionaires. Disinformation gives them an advantage over the very large number of non-billionaires.

fauigerzigerk 7y ago
Billionaires also have plenty of ways to influence large numbers of non-billionaires. They can own media empires and think tanks, fund/lobby politicians and political movements with armies of volunteers, or become media personalities themselves. I would be interested in an analysis of who funds those troll campaigns. I'd wager billionaires rank very far below governments, political parties and corporations.
- wpietri 7y ago
  Again, that they have other tools doesn't mean that they want to give up this one. And they're not more likely to just because those groups use it. Indeed, governments and political parties are generally quite solicitous of the interests of the very rich. [1] As, of course, are corporations. [1] https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-...
  - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
    >Again, that they have other tools doesn't mean that they want to give up this one. It means that disinformation is relatively less important to billionaires compared to others. Not sure what the linked article has to do with it. Edit: The reason why I'm even debating this not very important difference is that I feel that structural issues with our political and economic system are too often obscured and trivialised by blaming it all on powerful evil individuals. For instance, billionaires want the companies they own shares in to make as much money as possible. CEOs who measure their success in increasing share prices are therefore incentivised to occasionally break the law. Does that mean billionaires wanted or even told the CEO to break the law? Not necessarily. Does it mean CEOs wouldn't break the law if the shares were owned by a pension fund and not by billionaires? No. So there are more complex structural issues that shouldn't get buried in too much finger pointing at rich individuals. Of course that doesn't mean there are no evil billionaires or that some of them wouldn't like to own a personal troll army. Who knows.