2 ms·

> In what way do you believe the powerful people you've cited have negatively effected you personally (i.e. restricted your freedom, etc.)? That's not my crite

> In what way do you believe the powerful people you've cited have negatively effected you personally (i.e. restricted your freedom, etc.)? That's not my criteria for how much power one should be allowed to wield. (whether they've wielded it against me or not) > If anything, many of them have made the world much better (on balance). Yes, even the Saudis. Oil is the lifeblood of the modern world. We should hardly forgive the Saudis for their human-rights violations because they "made the world a better place" by generously sharing their oil. > Just go look at what Xi has done to the tech titans in China if you doubt You're right, a corrupt authoritarian government can crack down on the mega-rich (another example: Putin took the oligarchs' extreme wealth, and redistributed it to himself).

next_xibalba 5y ago
> That's not my criteria for how much power one should be allowed to wield. I'm merely pointing out that their power is probably not as great as you fear ("unstoppable"). > We should hardly forgive the Saudis for their human-rights violations And yet we (China, U.S., Germany, Japan, etc.) have been for decades. In other words, many societies have made that bargain. > a corrupt authoritarian government can crack down on the mega-rich Disagree. Any entity (i.e. a government) having a monopoly on violence can crack down on tech companies and/or the mega-rich. If you can be arrested, your power can be curtailed. To put all of this in perspective, and to tie it back to your original comment, Twitter is smaller than Facebook, Instagram, Tik Tok, Snap, WeChat, Sina Weibo, Telegram, etc. It's smaller than Pinterest. This is nothing like a dystopian scenario in which the rich and powerful are all-powerful. It's not even on the level of, say, a Russian oligarch. Rather, it is a very rich individual (made so by his skill as an innovator and capital allocator) buying a relatively small and stagnant social network.

next_xibalba 5y ago

> That's not my criteria for how much power one should be allowed to wield. I'm merely pointing out that their power is probably not as great as you fear ("unstoppable"). > We should hardly forgive the Saudis for their human-rights violations And yet we (China, U.S., Germany, Japan, etc.) have been for decades. In other words, many societies have made that bargain. > a corrupt authoritarian government can crack down on the mega-rich Disagree. Any entity (i.e. a government) having a monopoly on violence can crack down on tech companies and/or the mega-rich. If you can be arrested, your power can be curtailed. To put all of this in perspective, and to tie it back to your original comment, Twitter is smaller than Facebook, Instagram, Tik Tok, Snap, WeChat, Sina Weibo, Telegram, etc. It's smaller than Pinterest. This is nothing like a dystopian scenario in which the rich and powerful are all-powerful. It's not even on the level of, say, a Russian oligarch. Rather, it is a very rich individual (made so by his skill as an innovator and capital allocator) buying a relatively small and stagnant social network.