5 ms·

I feel like flagging this just given the asshattery of CNBC's framing of the title "Sam Altman attends secretive annual meeting with the world’s elite." Fuckin

I feel like flagging this just given the asshattery of CNBC's framing of the title "Sam Altman attends secretive annual meeting with the world’s elite." Fucking spare me with this conspiracy theory bullshit. Yes, it's fully fine to question the details of what goes on in meetings like this, and how they influence public policy. But it's sad that someone who ostensibly considers herself a "journalist" would push it like this. And I really push back against the characterization that "The annual Bilderberg event is shrouded in mystery". It's not really that mysterious, it's individuals having a private meeting.

23B1 3y ago
From the official website https://bilderbergmeetings.org/ https://bilderbergmeetings.org/ “The Meeting is a forum for informal discussions about major issues. The Meetings are held under the Chatham House Rule, which states that participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s) nor of any other participant may be revealed. Thanks to the private nature of the Meeting, the participants take part as individuals rather than in any official capacity, and hence are not bound by the conventions of their office or by pre-agreed positions” Sounds explicitly secretive to me.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Absolutely, but that alone doesn't mean much.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  To me it sounds like a format worth considering in other places too. Thanks to the partial secrecy rules, they don't have to parrot populist talking points to receive good press. If you think about it, the internet used to be like that at some time in the past when the pseudonyms were the default and the content wasn't ranked by popularity or points.
  - 23B1 3y ago
    I’m merely pointing out that ‘secretive’ is an accurate headline.
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    Chatham House Rule, as others have pointed out, is based on this specific principle: Under the Chatham House Rule, anyone who comes to a meeting is free to use information from the discussion, but is not allowed to reveal who made any particular comment. It is designed to increase openness of discussion. The rule is a system for holding debates and discussion panels on controversial topics, named after the London headquarters of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, where the rule originated in June 1927. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule> The rule itself: When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed. Bilderberg apparently follow the CHR: Attendees are entitled to use information gained at meetings, but not attribute it to a named speaker (known as the Chatham House Rule). <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_meeting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_meeting> (Also mentioned in TFA.) Consider that it's possible, as has been rumoured, that people and organisations discuss topics on fora such as Hacker News under pseudonyms.
- nabla9 3y ago
  On the contrary. Chatham House Rule is a great way to discuss potentially sensitive issues so that what is discussed can be shared.
  - 23B1 3y ago
    You’re operating on the assumption that business and political leaders can and do operate in the best interests of the people they serve. But that has clearly not been the case for a very long time, if ever.
    - nabla9 3y ago
      They don't have common interests with each other either. Stacey Abrams, Peter Thiel, Anne Applebaum, and Demis Hassabis have very little in common. "Common man" has no singular interest either.
      - 23B1 3y ago
        Who says the attendees need to have common interests… in order to support or lend credibility to an agenda?
      - dredmorbius 3y ago
        The interests of the wealthy in part diverge (where they compete with one another most directly) and in part converge (preservation of wealth, issues in managing wealth and power, most directly). I agree in part with your observation, but that metric does in fact swing both ways.
- tptacek 3y ago
  I am on like 4 different Slacks that explicitly have the "Chatham House Rule", and have attended numerous professional events that have opened with a recitation of the "Chatham House Rule". I would go so far as to say that the Chatham House Rule is a general norm of private (as opposed to public) discussions; it's usually the expectation. Moreover: the Chatham House Rule is a relaxation of the secrecy expectations of private conversations. The Rule explicitly allows you to relate things you learn in the meeting to other people; it simply demands that you not attribute those statements. This is far less restrictive than every business negotiation, which all operate under boilerplate NDA terms. There might well be some other reason why the Bilderberg Meeting is problematic, but operating under the Chatham House Rule is not one of them. One way to get an appreciation for this stuff is to join a public commission of some sort. Here in Illinois, all public bodies operate under Open Meetings Act rules, which are so onerous that, after being involved for a very short time, you can immediately see why extragovernmental bodies like chambers of commerce and economic development corporations are so popular.
  - beached_whale 3y ago
    I think ISO meetings are like this too.
golemotron 3y ago
Where's the lie in the title? Are you saying that the meeting is not secretive or attended by people who are elite?
Veen 3y ago
It's very powerful individuals having a meeting, and what they decide, in secret, can have wide-ranging repercussions for people who lack their power—which is almost everybody else. It is not "conspiracy theory bullshit" to be highly skeptical of the motives of these individuals and impact of such meetings.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  Then if they have something to report on, report on it. As you point out, I think it's 100% fine, and indeed advisable, to be skeptical of people's motives. But what do you suggest, prohibiting free association of individuals?
  - 23B1 3y ago
    I think that public disclosure of publicly-traded companies is important so that shareholders can make informed decisions – so I don’t see why we wouldn’t require something similar out of elected leaders. And it’s not about prohibiting people from meeting, its about transparency in who and how they are influenced when in positions of public trust.
  - mbgerring 3y ago
    This is reporting — that this meeting is taking place, but the agenda of that meeting can’t be known to the public, even though we will almost certainly be affected by the outcome, is important news.
JohnFen 3y ago
I find this extremely annoying as well. None of these meetings are mysterious. It's a group of people with shared interests talking with each other -- much like all of us do in our own lives. The difference is only that those people are very wealthy and powerful. That means we should pay attention to them, but it doesn't mean what they're doing is some sort of shadowy mysterious conspiracy.
- 23B1 3y ago
  You’re right: it is no secret that the elite will collude to preserve and increase their power. They do it out in the open, brazenly, and no longer need secret meetings or shadowy clubs to get away with it.
echelon 3y ago
> OpenAI CEO Sam Altman will join forces with key leadership from Microsoft, DeepMind and Google on Thursday as the secretive Bilderberg Meeting kick-starts. This should be the title. Want to bet this is conversation about AI regulation? At this point anyone could still join and disrupt these titans. It's unclear where the moats are. Open source AI is scrappy, but is pulling its punches.
lamp987 3y ago
Its not "conspiracy theory bullshit" when its real. Scheming together for their collective benefit at the expense of the rest of the world's population is the completely publicly stated goal of that meeting.
LightBug1 3y ago
Weird response. I'm not a conspiracy nut, but that headline is exactly factual.

23B1 3y ago

From the official website https://bilderbergmeetings.org/ https://bilderbergmeetings.org/ “The Meeting is a forum for informal discussions about major issues. The Meetings are held under the Chatham House Rule, which states that participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s) nor of any other participant may be revealed. Thanks to the private nature of the Meeting, the participants take part as individuals rather than in any official capacity, and hence are not bound by the conventions of their office or by pre-agreed positions” Sounds explicitly secretive to me.

JohnFen 3y ago
Absolutely, but that alone doesn't mean much.
mrtksn 3y ago
To me it sounds like a format worth considering in other places too. Thanks to the partial secrecy rules, they don't have to parrot populist talking points to receive good press. If you think about it, the internet used to be like that at some time in the past when the pseudonyms were the default and the content wasn't ranked by popularity or points.
- 23B1 3y ago
  I’m merely pointing out that ‘secretive’ is an accurate headline.
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  Chatham House Rule, as others have pointed out, is based on this specific principle: Under the Chatham House Rule, anyone who comes to a meeting is free to use information from the discussion, but is not allowed to reveal who made any particular comment. It is designed to increase openness of discussion. The rule is a system for holding debates and discussion panels on controversial topics, named after the London headquarters of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, where the rule originated in June 1927. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule> The rule itself: When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed. Bilderberg apparently follow the CHR: Attendees are entitled to use information gained at meetings, but not attribute it to a named speaker (known as the Chatham House Rule). <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_meeting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_meeting> (Also mentioned in TFA.) Consider that it's possible, as has been rumoured, that people and organisations discuss topics on fora such as Hacker News under pseudonyms.
nabla9 3y ago
On the contrary. Chatham House Rule is a great way to discuss potentially sensitive issues so that what is discussed can be shared.
- 23B1 3y ago
  You’re operating on the assumption that business and political leaders can and do operate in the best interests of the people they serve. But that has clearly not been the case for a very long time, if ever.
  - nabla9 3y ago
    They don't have common interests with each other either. Stacey Abrams, Peter Thiel, Anne Applebaum, and Demis Hassabis have very little in common. "Common man" has no singular interest either.
    - 23B1 3y ago
      Who says the attendees need to have common interests… in order to support or lend credibility to an agenda?
    - dredmorbius 3y ago
      The interests of the wealthy in part diverge (where they compete with one another most directly) and in part converge (preservation of wealth, issues in managing wealth and power, most directly). I agree in part with your observation, but that metric does in fact swing both ways.
tptacek 3y ago
I am on like 4 different Slacks that explicitly have the "Chatham House Rule", and have attended numerous professional events that have opened with a recitation of the "Chatham House Rule". I would go so far as to say that the Chatham House Rule is a general norm of private (as opposed to public) discussions; it's usually the expectation. Moreover: the Chatham House Rule is a relaxation of the secrecy expectations of private conversations. The Rule explicitly allows you to relate things you learn in the meeting to other people; it simply demands that you not attribute those statements. This is far less restrictive than every business negotiation, which all operate under boilerplate NDA terms. There might well be some other reason why the Bilderberg Meeting is problematic, but operating under the Chatham House Rule is not one of them. One way to get an appreciation for this stuff is to join a public commission of some sort. Here in Illinois, all public bodies operate under Open Meetings Act rules, which are so onerous that, after being involved for a very short time, you can immediately see why extragovernmental bodies like chambers of commerce and economic development corporations are so popular.
- beached_whale 3y ago
  I think ISO meetings are like this too.

golemotron 3y ago

Where's the lie in the title? Are you saying that the meeting is not secretive or attended by people who are elite?

Veen 3y ago

It's very powerful individuals having a meeting, and what they decide, in secret, can have wide-ranging repercussions for people who lack their power—which is almost everybody else. It is not "conspiracy theory bullshit" to be highly skeptical of the motives of these individuals and impact of such meetings.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
Then if they have something to report on, report on it. As you point out, I think it's 100% fine, and indeed advisable, to be skeptical of people's motives. But what do you suggest, prohibiting free association of individuals?
- 23B1 3y ago
  I think that public disclosure of publicly-traded companies is important so that shareholders can make informed decisions – so I don’t see why we wouldn’t require something similar out of elected leaders. And it’s not about prohibiting people from meeting, its about transparency in who and how they are influenced when in positions of public trust.
- mbgerring 3y ago
  This is reporting — that this meeting is taking place, but the agenda of that meeting can’t be known to the public, even though we will almost certainly be affected by the outcome, is important news.

JohnFen 3y ago

I find this extremely annoying as well. None of these meetings are mysterious. It's a group of people with shared interests talking with each other -- much like all of us do in our own lives. The difference is only that those people are very wealthy and powerful. That means we should pay attention to them, but it doesn't mean what they're doing is some sort of shadowy mysterious conspiracy.

23B1 3y ago
You’re right: it is no secret that the elite will collude to preserve and increase their power. They do it out in the open, brazenly, and no longer need secret meetings or shadowy clubs to get away with it.

echelon 3y ago

> OpenAI CEO Sam Altman will join forces with key leadership from Microsoft, DeepMind and Google on Thursday as the secretive Bilderberg Meeting kick-starts. This should be the title. Want to bet this is conversation about AI regulation? At this point anyone could still join and disrupt these titans. It's unclear where the moats are. Open source AI is scrappy, but is pulling its punches.

lamp987 3y ago

Its not "conspiracy theory bullshit" when its real. Scheming together for their collective benefit at the expense of the rest of the world's population is the completely publicly stated goal of that meeting.

LightBug1 3y ago

Weird response. I'm not a conspiracy nut, but that headline is exactly factual.