4 ms·

How is this a "conspiracy", that post is pointing out how wealthy and powerful people don't have to worry about the long term effects of their actions like thei

by AGSYS 6y ago

How is this a "conspiracy", that post is pointing out how wealthy and powerful people don't have to worry about the long term effects of their actions like their employees do.

Nasrudith 6y ago
The statement about it being different from assumed ability to control things - if that was true then we wouldn't see the farce of anti-trust hearings and it would be ignored like Disney's prepostorus levels of consolidation. The real world is more complicated than those simplistic soundbites and scapegoating as many agents struggle for power. If they really had that level of control the governments would have given up on their moronic backdooring of encryption ideas.
BurningFrog 6y ago
> "Eric Schmidt can [...] ignore the fact that he owned a social network (Youtube) that knowingly hosted radical content and disinformation which would have (in part) caused the civil unrest he’s fleeing from." Conspiracy is maybe the wrong word, but OP seems to genuinely believe that Schmidt caused the recent civil unrest through his Youtube ownership.
- freehunter 6y ago
  I’m not sure where you read in my comment that I “genuinely believe” that he “caused” the “recent” unrest when I feel like I went to major lengths to paint the situation as a hypothetical scenario that may possibly take place in a hypothetical version of the future. I used a lot of “if” statements and “for example” and future tense, and “as a result of the recent election” (so not relating to this summer’s unrest). I even used so many weasel words like “whether or not that’s his intention” and “true or not” and “what people are seeing”. None of that in any way implies a genuine belief or does it imply I’m speaking about something that actually happened in the past. I then linked to an article that shows this hypothetical future situation has actually happened in the recent past, billionaires fleeing to safety while their employees suffer and die. If that’s “QAnon levels” of “conspiracy madness” then holy fuck we’re screwed because this has actually happened, and recently, as shown in the article I linked to. And the fact that it actually happened is the reason people assume that’s what he’s doing now... because the same thing actually happened earlier this year with other billionaires. I mean, I went way out of my way to explicitly avoid comments like this and it seems like you just ignored all of that and read exactly what you wanted to read. That’s not the level of discourse I expect from HN.

by AGSYS 6y ago

How is this a "conspiracy", that post is pointing out how wealthy and powerful people don't have to worry about the long term effects of their actions like their employees do.

Nasrudith 6y ago

The statement about it being different from assumed ability to control things - if that was true then we wouldn't see the farce of anti-trust hearings and it would be ignored like Disney's prepostorus levels of consolidation. The real world is more complicated than those simplistic soundbites and scapegoating as many agents struggle for power. If they really had that level of control the governments would have given up on their moronic backdooring of encryption ideas.

BurningFrog 6y ago

> "Eric Schmidt can [...] ignore the fact that he owned a social network (Youtube) that knowingly hosted radical content and disinformation which would have (in part) caused the civil unrest he’s fleeing from." Conspiracy is maybe the wrong word, but OP seems to genuinely believe that Schmidt caused the recent civil unrest through his Youtube ownership.

freehunter 6y ago
I’m not sure where you read in my comment that I “genuinely believe” that he “caused” the “recent” unrest when I feel like I went to major lengths to paint the situation as a hypothetical scenario that may possibly take place in a hypothetical version of the future. I used a lot of “if” statements and “for example” and future tense, and “as a result of the recent election” (so not relating to this summer’s unrest). I even used so many weasel words like “whether or not that’s his intention” and “true or not” and “what people are seeing”. None of that in any way implies a genuine belief or does it imply I’m speaking about something that actually happened in the past. I then linked to an article that shows this hypothetical future situation has actually happened in the recent past, billionaires fleeing to safety while their employees suffer and die. If that’s “QAnon levels” of “conspiracy madness” then holy fuck we’re screwed because this has actually happened, and recently, as shown in the article I linked to. And the fact that it actually happened is the reason people assume that’s what he’s doing now... because the same thing actually happened earlier this year with other billionaires. I mean, I went way out of my way to explicitly avoid comments like this and it seems like you just ignored all of that and read exactly what you wanted to read. That’s not the level of discourse I expect from HN.