9 ms·

This entire song-and-dance from executives, media, platforms, and the general "status quo preservationists" over the last month in response to Luigi is priceles

This entire song-and-dance from executives, media, platforms, and the general "status quo preservationists" over the last month in response to Luigi is priceless. They seem to have a high desire to place any disrespect they can on what seems to be an otherwise revered political activist in recent times; and it's only further fueling the discussion, and in all likelihood - probability for successors. They would have been smart to play a leveling field, to treat Luigi's act with an element of absurdity, which would cause everyday people to question if their relatability towards Luigi was warranted or even made sense. Instead, they played a hand that the fearful would - because they are, and only validated the vigilante's narrative - because it is.

anigbrowl 2y ago
Administrators reflexively lie. They are committed to preserving whatever institution employs them, not to any objective standard of truth or behavior. I have lost count of how many times I have highlighted such behavior over the alst decade.
- HaZeust 2y ago
  Me as well, but instead highlighting their lack of commitment to morals and integrity; rather than standard of truth or behavior - equally valid take, mind you!
- beefnugs 2y ago
  I find it hilarious that they can't even keep their power in check to save it for when it would REALLY matter... but they just cant help themselves, they love to execute the control as quickly as it is available even though this leaves a trail of erosion. An obvious worldwide trend of complete speech control, right in the open for all of us to follow and see. Instead of just waiting a bit longer... until there was no way to stop it (maybe its already too late?) But i feel like this is too soon to pull this trigger, we still have time to stop using all these large platforms that aren't even vital to our lives, to make open and peer to peer alternatives
- chongli 2y ago
  Lying to preserve an institution is like playing Jenga: eroding the foundation in order to scale up the tower.
  - anigbrowl 2y ago
    Fantastic metaphor - I'll definitely be using that.
mustache_kimono 2y ago
[flagged]
- computerfriend 2y ago
  It's not mutually exclusive.
  - mustache_kimono 2y ago
    Sure -- the two ends of the political horseshoe do seem to admire political violence more and more. But I'd take issue with "revered". Perhaps "revered" among the very liberal and very online, all of whom must certainly be mentally ill to revere political violence in the US in this climate. And to think what will rise from the ashes of lefty political violence will be a lefty utopia? Of course it will be fascism. Of course.
    - gazunklenut 2y ago
      Yeah exatly, like when they murdererd poor old innocent Louis XVI
      - mustache_kimono 2y ago
        eye roll Please. Health care policy isn't war, isn't apartheid, isn't civil rights.
        amatecha 2y ago
        Oh yeah, speaking of rights... "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." - https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
llm_trw 2y ago
It's a shame that these people don't read, because if they did they see just how often the rich and powerful were murdered during the gilded age. From Wallstreet to St. Petersburg everyone from Emperors to titans of industry was assassinated by those with nothing left to lose. It's almost like income equality is there to keep them alive and to keep another world war from breaking out.
- rullelito 2y ago
  [flagged]
- martin-t 2y ago
  But that _have_ learned. They are systematically making violence a taboo the way sex was in the past. If all people think violence is wrong and immoral instead of just against the rules they have written ("laws"), then they can keep writing rules that suit them even more and more without any pressure against it.
  - lazide 2y ago
    Do you think assassinating arch-dukes was being sold as virtuous back then either? Especially by the churches which were the moral arbiters of the time? Plenty of people were still in favor, clearly.
    - martin-t 2y ago
      The difference is in the past most discourse was by mouth - impossible to censor and eavesdropping was costly because you needed a person to do it. These days more and more discourse is online - heavily censored by platform rules which are much more strict than laws, partially because it makes the moderator's job easier to err on the side of caution, partially because it teaches people to self censor which then extends into real life - censorship can be automated and even invisible (shadowbanning, fake degradation of QoL, ...) - eavesdropping is also automated and omnipresent The real danger of AI or LLMs these days is not they machines will want to kill us but that powerful people will use them to mass-profile everyone and stop any dissent from spreading. Do you think China will have a revolution and restore democracy? How? How will people organize? And every currently democratic state will be the same - democracy only needs to fail once and it will be almost impossible to restore. --- EDIT: Even word of mouth is in danger, sufficiently powerful organizations are or will be able to access microphones near you. Or cameras for lip reading. Again, en-masse, automated by AI.
ActorNightly 2y ago
Honestly, they are just playing the rulebook of "lets not get into regulartory waters". The reality is that no one on either side really gives a shit that much, as proven by recent elections.
gorgoiler 2y ago
An aspect worth considering: everyone with a large investment in civil society is opposed to murderous vigilantism, and while that includes the economic 1%, the fellow CEOs, the Media Industrial Complex*, et al., it also includes a much more boring demographic: simple, decent folk who are opposed to violence and law-breaking. The status quo behaviour of Stack Exchange and others is pandering, but it’s just as likely to be pandering to mom and pop as it is to Musk and Murdoch. * tongue-in-cheek
- maeil 2y ago
  This doesn't take away from your point, but what defines violence? I recently asked this to someone here but unfortunately did not get an answer [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42566862 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42566862
immibis 2y ago
It's not the first time they've done this. They've consistently done it with Gaza. When they do cover it at all, it's only to paint protestors as terrorists. (Yet the France vs Israel sportsball match was played to a three quarters empty stadium because that many people hate Israe now)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
lyu07282 2y ago
True but I think it just shows that this isn't malicious on their part, like journalists and politicians aren't all uniformly intentionally creating and maintaining a broken healthcare system that murders¹ thousands of people and bankrupts an estimated 650k people a year. It's rather the very natural result of their ideology, if the same people had to rebuilt the healthcare system the end result would be identical. There is a reason why Bernie is universally despised by all of them, this is the shared ideology, its this unspoken thing that every CNN and FOX news anchor, every nypost and nyt journalist, Obama, Bush, Biden and Trump all have in common. That's why this Luigi situation was so eye-opening to many people, it showed the cracks in the system. None of those people will ever be part of the solution, it's all of them collectively we need to overcome. ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_murder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_murder
sour-taste 2y ago
Hypothetical - is it possible for someone to set up an ethical health insurance company that just takes in premiums and pays out for care? If people despise the current companies so much why can't we just start a new company, maybe as a public benefits corporation that by charter has to act ethically?
- ars 2y ago
  So the fun thing is that's already what happens! It's part of a law passed with the ACA called the Medical Loss Ratio rule. I've come to discover that most people really do not understand healthcare insurance at all. The true driver of increased costs is Dr's and Hospitals. Not insurance.
  - DangitBobby 2y ago
    This rule magically solved all incentive misalignment in healthcare and everyone clapped.
  - DangitBobby 2y ago
    The rule might have made things even worse, since now total costs have to go up for their profit to go up. Contrast this with a non-profit which has no incentive to increase profits and thus no incentive to increase costs. I agree that these conversations mainly reveal to me that many people don't understand the economics driving costs in US healthcare, since they are so willing to carry water for private insurers.
    - ars 2y ago
      > since now total costs have to go up for their profit to go up. And yet, they deny claims, despite that denying a claim reduces their profits. > to carry water for private insurers. Because insurance it utterly irrelevant to the issue. The problems in the US lie at the Dr/Hospital level, not the insurance. Procedures simply cost too much, having the government pay for them will just makes things worse because government always overpays for things. You want to solve things? Make medical tuition free, and remove ALL caps on number of doctors (especially difficult with residency, but it can be done). Then reduce rates for services. Someone should start a fully integrated company: They educate you, find you a residency, and hire you. In exchange for free tuition you agree to work for lower rates. (There will need to be some details to work out obviously, since you can't force people to work.)

anigbrowl 2y ago

Administrators reflexively lie. They are committed to preserving whatever institution employs them, not to any objective standard of truth or behavior. I have lost count of how many times I have highlighted such behavior over the alst decade.

HaZeust 2y ago
Me as well, but instead highlighting their lack of commitment to morals and integrity; rather than standard of truth or behavior - equally valid take, mind you!
beefnugs 2y ago
I find it hilarious that they can't even keep their power in check to save it for when it would REALLY matter... but they just cant help themselves, they love to execute the control as quickly as it is available even though this leaves a trail of erosion. An obvious worldwide trend of complete speech control, right in the open for all of us to follow and see. Instead of just waiting a bit longer... until there was no way to stop it (maybe its already too late?) But i feel like this is too soon to pull this trigger, we still have time to stop using all these large platforms that aren't even vital to our lives, to make open and peer to peer alternatives
chongli 2y ago
Lying to preserve an institution is like playing Jenga: eroding the foundation in order to scale up the tower.
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  Fantastic metaphor - I'll definitely be using that.

mustache_kimono 2y ago

[flagged]

computerfriend 2y ago
It's not mutually exclusive.
- mustache_kimono 2y ago
  Sure -- the two ends of the political horseshoe do seem to admire political violence more and more. But I'd take issue with "revered". Perhaps "revered" among the very liberal and very online, all of whom must certainly be mentally ill to revere political violence in the US in this climate. And to think what will rise from the ashes of lefty political violence will be a lefty utopia? Of course it will be fascism. Of course.
  - gazunklenut 2y ago
    Yeah exatly, like when they murdererd poor old innocent Louis XVI
    - mustache_kimono 2y ago
      eye roll Please. Health care policy isn't war, isn't apartheid, isn't civil rights.
      - amatecha 2y ago
        Oh yeah, speaking of rights... "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." - https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...

llm_trw 2y ago

It's a shame that these people don't read, because if they did they see just how often the rich and powerful were murdered during the gilded age. From Wallstreet to St. Petersburg everyone from Emperors to titans of industry was assassinated by those with nothing left to lose. It's almost like income equality is there to keep them alive and to keep another world war from breaking out.

rullelito 2y ago
[flagged]
martin-t 2y ago
But that _have_ learned. They are systematically making violence a taboo the way sex was in the past. If all people think violence is wrong and immoral instead of just against the rules they have written ("laws"), then they can keep writing rules that suit them even more and more without any pressure against it.
- lazide 2y ago
  Do you think assassinating arch-dukes was being sold as virtuous back then either? Especially by the churches which were the moral arbiters of the time? Plenty of people were still in favor, clearly.
  - martin-t 2y ago
    The difference is in the past most discourse was by mouth - impossible to censor and eavesdropping was costly because you needed a person to do it. These days more and more discourse is online - heavily censored by platform rules which are much more strict than laws, partially because it makes the moderator's job easier to err on the side of caution, partially because it teaches people to self censor which then extends into real life - censorship can be automated and even invisible (shadowbanning, fake degradation of QoL, ...) - eavesdropping is also automated and omnipresent The real danger of AI or LLMs these days is not they machines will want to kill us but that powerful people will use them to mass-profile everyone and stop any dissent from spreading. Do you think China will have a revolution and restore democracy? How? How will people organize? And every currently democratic state will be the same - democracy only needs to fail once and it will be almost impossible to restore. --- EDIT: Even word of mouth is in danger, sufficiently powerful organizations are or will be able to access microphones near you. Or cameras for lip reading. Again, en-masse, automated by AI.

ActorNightly 2y ago

Honestly, they are just playing the rulebook of "lets not get into regulartory waters". The reality is that no one on either side really gives a shit that much, as proven by recent elections.

gorgoiler 2y ago

An aspect worth considering: everyone with a large investment in civil society is opposed to murderous vigilantism, and while that includes the economic 1%, the fellow CEOs, the Media Industrial Complex*, et al., it also includes a much more boring demographic: simple, decent folk who are opposed to violence and law-breaking. The status quo behaviour of Stack Exchange and others is pandering, but it’s just as likely to be pandering to mom and pop as it is to Musk and Murdoch. * tongue-in-cheek

maeil 2y ago
This doesn't take away from your point, but what defines violence? I recently asked this to someone here but unfortunately did not get an answer [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42566862 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42566862

immibis 2y ago

It's not the first time they've done this. They've consistently done it with Gaza. When they do cover it at all, it's only to paint protestors as terrorists. (Yet the France vs Israel sportsball match was played to a three quarters empty stadium because that many people hate Israe now)

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

lyu07282 2y ago

True but I think it just shows that this isn't malicious on their part, like journalists and politicians aren't all uniformly intentionally creating and maintaining a broken healthcare system that murders¹ thousands of people and bankrupts an estimated 650k people a year. It's rather the very natural result of their ideology, if the same people had to rebuilt the healthcare system the end result would be identical. There is a reason why Bernie is universally despised by all of them, this is the shared ideology, its this unspoken thing that every CNN and FOX news anchor, every nypost and nyt journalist, Obama, Bush, Biden and Trump all have in common. That's why this Luigi situation was so eye-opening to many people, it showed the cracks in the system. None of those people will ever be part of the solution, it's all of them collectively we need to overcome. ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_murder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_murder

sour-taste 2y ago

Hypothetical - is it possible for someone to set up an ethical health insurance company that just takes in premiums and pays out for care? If people despise the current companies so much why can't we just start a new company, maybe as a public benefits corporation that by charter has to act ethically?

ars 2y ago
So the fun thing is that's already what happens! It's part of a law passed with the ACA called the Medical Loss Ratio rule. I've come to discover that most people really do not understand healthcare insurance at all. The true driver of increased costs is Dr's and Hospitals. Not insurance.
- DangitBobby 2y ago
  This rule magically solved all incentive misalignment in healthcare and everyone clapped.
- DangitBobby 2y ago
  The rule might have made things even worse, since now total costs have to go up for their profit to go up. Contrast this with a non-profit which has no incentive to increase profits and thus no incentive to increase costs. I agree that these conversations mainly reveal to me that many people don't understand the economics driving costs in US healthcare, since they are so willing to carry water for private insurers.
  - ars 2y ago
    > since now total costs have to go up for their profit to go up. And yet, they deny claims, despite that denying a claim reduces their profits. > to carry water for private insurers. Because insurance it utterly irrelevant to the issue. The problems in the US lie at the Dr/Hospital level, not the insurance. Procedures simply cost too much, having the government pay for them will just makes things worse because government always overpays for things. You want to solve things? Make medical tuition free, and remove ALL caps on number of doctors (especially difficult with residency, but it can be done). Then reduce rates for services. Someone should start a fully integrated company: They educate you, find you a residency, and hire you. In exchange for free tuition you agree to work for lower rates. (There will need to be some details to work out obviously, since you can't force people to work.)