4 ms·

I’m sorry but this is so naive. They were billionaires yesterday and they’re going to be billionaires tomorrow. Their reputation is going to be fine because we

I’m sorry but this is so naive. They were billionaires yesterday and they’re going to be billionaires tomorrow. Their reputation is going to be fine because we live in a society that absolutely worships money and those who have it. People with that kind of money can pay to scrub the internet.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
> People with that kind of money can pay to scrub the internet. I'm sorry but this is so naive. Maybe true if you've got a bit of money and a little bit of notoriety, but I don't think that it would be possible to dissociate the Sacklers' name from the opioid crisis anytime soon.
- hans1729 6y ago
  > I don't think that it would be possible to dissociate the Sacklers' name from the opioid crisis anytime soon Attention is short. I wouldn't rule it out; pr goes a long way. Spend a couple million on a completely unrelated but well regarded cause of charity and folks who don't have skin in the opioid-game won't associate them for the bad they did (but for their most recent memories). What will keep the association alive for a while will be documentaries and those who watch them, but lets be real: that's not the public.
  - chopin 6y ago
    I dare to say that I'll never donate for a charity which takes money from the Sacklers. I will remember the name for the rest of my life. I think this is too big to be easily cleaned up.
- spaetzleesser 6y ago
  Wait a few years, let them put their names on some charitable foundations and giving away a small or large percentage of their gains and they will have stellar reputations. Worked for Bill Gates, Andrew Carnegie, Michael Milken and many others.
  - selectodude 6y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/arts/design/met-museum-sackler-opioids.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/arts/design/met-museum-sa... The Sacklers have been donating huge sums to put their name on things for a long time.
- save_ferris 6y ago
  I think you vastly overestimate the attention span of the public on this. If you asked 100 random people on the street who was behind the opioid crisis, I’d be shocked if 10 knew. You also don’t acknowledge how easy it is for the wealthy to hide their money via intermediary organizations and shell companies. It’s not like they absolutely have to donate using the Sackler name.
  - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
    > If you asked 100 random people on the street who was behind the opioid crisis, I’d be shocked if 10 knew. Never argued against that, and I don't disagree with that at all. But if someone cares to do even the bare minimum of research, it's easy to come up with the Sacklers. What I am arguing against is that the Sacklers will somehow be able to use their wealth to scrub Google et al of their association with OxyContin. > It’s not like they absolutely have to donate using the Sackler name. For folks like them, though, then what's the point? After a certain level of Midas-like wealth, the only point is societal standing and legacy. The Sacklers don't seem like the type of folks who are going to get inner joy by donating anonymously.
    - FlyMoreRockets 6y ago
      > ...if someone cares to do even the bare minimum of research... Aye, there's the rub.
- R0b0t1 6y ago
  It's not naive. They have enough money that if it isn't taken they can simply outlast any hit to their reputation.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
lordnacho 6y ago
Everyone likes money, but that doesn't mean they respect those who have it. Do you think more highly of the oil countries that have bought a football club? In a way it's kinda satisfying that the price of respectability is so high; nobody thinks the gulf states are any better than before they decided to pay a bunch of young men exorbitant wages to kick a ball around.
- save_ferris 6y ago
  > Do you think more highly of the oil countries that have bought a football club? No, but I don’t see how that deters them from misbehaving. How many billionaire oil or pharma magnates just wish they had a little more respectability? You think they care at all what people think about them? If they did, they wouldn’t have done what made them their blood money in the first place. The Sacklers enabled the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and yet which did they choose to protect: their money or their reputation?
scottlocklin 6y ago
Most billionaires haven't created a genocidal drug plague in America. Those who have should be at the very least shunned socially if we can't muster up a way of bankrupting them and throwing them in prison. I see the devastation of this all around me; this isn't some minor oopsie that resulted in a large fortune -it was the deliberate poisoning of large swathes of the country for profit. You should make people aware of it when they invite you to events or places with their name on it. I've seen people call out Jeff Dean for inviting people to some Sackler named event; he seemed pretty horrified as well he should be.
131012 6y ago
They might even run for president.
- FlyMoreRockets 6y ago
  Or the current president might place them as the head of Health and Human Services.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago

> People with that kind of money can pay to scrub the internet. I'm sorry but this is so naive. Maybe true if you've got a bit of money and a little bit of notoriety, but I don't think that it would be possible to dissociate the Sacklers' name from the opioid crisis anytime soon.

hans1729 6y ago
> I don't think that it would be possible to dissociate the Sacklers' name from the opioid crisis anytime soon Attention is short. I wouldn't rule it out; pr goes a long way. Spend a couple million on a completely unrelated but well regarded cause of charity and folks who don't have skin in the opioid-game won't associate them for the bad they did (but for their most recent memories). What will keep the association alive for a while will be documentaries and those who watch them, but lets be real: that's not the public.
- chopin 6y ago
  I dare to say that I'll never donate for a charity which takes money from the Sacklers. I will remember the name for the rest of my life. I think this is too big to be easily cleaned up.
spaetzleesser 6y ago
Wait a few years, let them put their names on some charitable foundations and giving away a small or large percentage of their gains and they will have stellar reputations. Worked for Bill Gates, Andrew Carnegie, Michael Milken and many others.
- selectodude 6y ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/arts/design/met-museum-sackler-opioids.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/arts/design/met-museum-sa... The Sacklers have been donating huge sums to put their name on things for a long time.
save_ferris 6y ago
I think you vastly overestimate the attention span of the public on this. If you asked 100 random people on the street who was behind the opioid crisis, I’d be shocked if 10 knew. You also don’t acknowledge how easy it is for the wealthy to hide their money via intermediary organizations and shell companies. It’s not like they absolutely have to donate using the Sackler name.
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  > If you asked 100 random people on the street who was behind the opioid crisis, I’d be shocked if 10 knew. Never argued against that, and I don't disagree with that at all. But if someone cares to do even the bare minimum of research, it's easy to come up with the Sacklers. What I am arguing against is that the Sacklers will somehow be able to use their wealth to scrub Google et al of their association with OxyContin. > It’s not like they absolutely have to donate using the Sackler name. For folks like them, though, then what's the point? After a certain level of Midas-like wealth, the only point is societal standing and legacy. The Sacklers don't seem like the type of folks who are going to get inner joy by donating anonymously.
  - FlyMoreRockets 6y ago
    > ...if someone cares to do even the bare minimum of research... Aye, there's the rub.
R0b0t1 6y ago
It's not naive. They have enough money that if it isn't taken they can simply outlast any hit to their reputation.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

lordnacho 6y ago

Everyone likes money, but that doesn't mean they respect those who have it. Do you think more highly of the oil countries that have bought a football club? In a way it's kinda satisfying that the price of respectability is so high; nobody thinks the gulf states are any better than before they decided to pay a bunch of young men exorbitant wages to kick a ball around.

save_ferris 6y ago
> Do you think more highly of the oil countries that have bought a football club? No, but I don’t see how that deters them from misbehaving. How many billionaire oil or pharma magnates just wish they had a little more respectability? You think they care at all what people think about them? If they did, they wouldn’t have done what made them their blood money in the first place. The Sacklers enabled the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and yet which did they choose to protect: their money or their reputation?

scottlocklin 6y ago

Most billionaires haven't created a genocidal drug plague in America. Those who have should be at the very least shunned socially if we can't muster up a way of bankrupting them and throwing them in prison. I see the devastation of this all around me; this isn't some minor oopsie that resulted in a large fortune -it was the deliberate poisoning of large swathes of the country for profit. You should make people aware of it when they invite you to events or places with their name on it. I've seen people call out Jeff Dean for inviting people to some Sackler named event; he seemed pretty horrified as well he should be.

131012 6y ago

They might even run for president.

FlyMoreRockets 6y ago
Or the current president might place them as the head of Health and Human Services.