3 ms·

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

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.