5 ms·

> radicalization of, e.g., Marc Andreessen Can you share more? I read his book years ago, but haven't heard/read anything since.

noelwelsh 9mo ago
Just search and you'll find a million articles about his "dark enlightenment" (or whatever stupid name is used) views. I think "Chatham House" was the name of a private group chat he was in that helped this process along, and there are several articles about this.
- vintermann 9mo ago
  Chatham house are famous for the rule that if you're invited, you agree that if you talk about what they talked about in their meetings, you must not say who said it. Most political manipulation of influential people isn't sophisticated at all, it's 3rd grade bullying level. For instance, getting invited to an exclusive meaning as proof of your importance/"seriousness". Brazen flattery, but it works. And the secrecy grooms them into betraying outsiders in favor of insiders. It's not such a big betrayal to give cover to powerful people's ugly opinions, but it's a start. And once you've done one bad thing with the gang, you're easier to persuade to do worse things with the gang. Again, really banal stuff. Remember in Snowden's biography, he mentioned being involved in a plot to get some diplomatic person to drunk drive, so they could swoop in and "help" him. That wasn't just targeted at the diplomat. It was also targeted at rookie CIA agent Ed: first do iffy things with us, so that you have firmly rationalized and justified it to yourself once we ask you to do uglier stuff.
  - lanstin 9mo ago
    This post really reads like a C.S. Lewis novel - the whole fear of being an outsider and laughed at, and the gradual but slippery slope towards more substantial clearly bad stuff.
    - stn8188 9mo ago
      It does sound a lot like the antagonist organization in The Space Trilogy novels...
    - vintermann 9mo ago
      Chatham House is openly the sort of "inner ring" Lewis warned about. To get the topic back more on topic for HN, I think that the fear of AI manipulation of the public is misplaced. Not because it can't be a thing, but because private AI-fueled manipulation will be far more destructive. If you fake a video of some horrific crime and post it on the internet, a thousand people will be examining it for mistakes - and a thousand people will claim mistakes which aren't there, and it'll create a lot of noise and certainly that's not a small problem. But if you fake a video and show it to your super-exclusive private circle and explain to them that of course you must not talk about this for the sake of the victims etc. then it's far less likely the mistakes will be spotted. Our leaders can be radicalized by propaganda we're not even allowed to see - that scares me.
svelle 9mo ago
It's pretty much all laid out on Wikipedia. He initially supported the Democratic Party but because of crypto and AI he donated millions to super PACs for Trump, supported DOGE and said that children are now being readicalized to hate capitalism as well as directly messaging the Trump administration to put pressure on Universities like NSF, SU and MIT because of DEI or something like that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Andreessen#Political_views https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Andreessen#Political_view...
- lotsofpulp 9mo ago
  One can support a party and then change to not supporting a party for a variety of reasons. Such as disagreeing with the direction the party is going, especially locally, or even as simple as eschewing the previously supported party because you are betting the other one will win and need to curry favor.
  - afavour 9mo ago
    Sure, but why argue the abstract when we have Andreessen’s views and actions on record?
    - lotsofpulp 9mo ago
      I haven't studied Andreessen's views and actions, so I was just positing a strategic reason for a change in political support for a high profile person. (as opposed to a drastic change in their thoughts which is what I take to mean as "radicalized") For example, I have always preferred most of Democrats' positions on the national level, but on the local/state level, especially in California/Oregon/Washington, I disagree with a lot of the Democrat leaders, more and more since 2010 (I would say my views have not changed much, but the party's priorities at the state and local level have). Of course, I'm nowhere near as influential as Andreessen nor do I have interests that would warrant a say in national politics, but I can see why if one is against local leadership, they would cozy up to someone who they think can help you fight against them, without being "radicalized", per the above definition.
- 9mo ago
smashah 9mo ago
extremely anecdotal but whenever I see a racist on Twitter, there's a non-insignificant likelihood that I click on their profile and see Marc Andreesen following them.
lucaspm98 9mo ago
“Radicalization” to the OP likely means swinging from vaguely left-leaning to right-leaning.
- p-e-w 9mo ago
  I remember a time when entire discussion threads were swiftly culled from HN based on the magnitude of their political content. These days, it’s pretty clear that the direction matters a lot more than the magnitude, and “flamebait” is only a problem when the flames blow a certain way.
  - DonHopkins 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - lucaspm98 9mo ago
      The reason political discussion needs to be limited is exactly for comments like these. Low effort characterizations of mainstream politics as racist or fascist is purely inflammatory, and only going to further turn HN into Reddit but for tech.
fsloth 9mo ago
He explains their pivot with Ben to GOP in this podcast episode. The main argument was that democrats policies were detrimental to their business. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_sNclEgQZQ&t=11s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_sNclEgQZQ&t=11s Mr. Andreessen has been involved with high level politics for a long time. This is not "random radicalization". I will not comment on the quality of the politics but it feels fairly deliberate.

noelwelsh 9mo ago

Just search and you'll find a million articles about his "dark enlightenment" (or whatever stupid name is used) views. I think "Chatham House" was the name of a private group chat he was in that helped this process along, and there are several articles about this.

vintermann 9mo ago
Chatham house are famous for the rule that if you're invited, you agree that if you talk about what they talked about in their meetings, you must not say who said it. Most political manipulation of influential people isn't sophisticated at all, it's 3rd grade bullying level. For instance, getting invited to an exclusive meaning as proof of your importance/"seriousness". Brazen flattery, but it works. And the secrecy grooms them into betraying outsiders in favor of insiders. It's not such a big betrayal to give cover to powerful people's ugly opinions, but it's a start. And once you've done one bad thing with the gang, you're easier to persuade to do worse things with the gang. Again, really banal stuff. Remember in Snowden's biography, he mentioned being involved in a plot to get some diplomatic person to drunk drive, so they could swoop in and "help" him. That wasn't just targeted at the diplomat. It was also targeted at rookie CIA agent Ed: first do iffy things with us, so that you have firmly rationalized and justified it to yourself once we ask you to do uglier stuff.
- lanstin 9mo ago
  This post really reads like a C.S. Lewis novel - the whole fear of being an outsider and laughed at, and the gradual but slippery slope towards more substantial clearly bad stuff.
  - stn8188 9mo ago
    It does sound a lot like the antagonist organization in The Space Trilogy novels...
  - vintermann 9mo ago
    Chatham House is openly the sort of "inner ring" Lewis warned about. To get the topic back more on topic for HN, I think that the fear of AI manipulation of the public is misplaced. Not because it can't be a thing, but because private AI-fueled manipulation will be far more destructive. If you fake a video of some horrific crime and post it on the internet, a thousand people will be examining it for mistakes - and a thousand people will claim mistakes which aren't there, and it'll create a lot of noise and certainly that's not a small problem. But if you fake a video and show it to your super-exclusive private circle and explain to them that of course you must not talk about this for the sake of the victims etc. then it's far less likely the mistakes will be spotted. Our leaders can be radicalized by propaganda we're not even allowed to see - that scares me.

svelle 9mo ago

It's pretty much all laid out on Wikipedia. He initially supported the Democratic Party but because of crypto and AI he donated millions to super PACs for Trump, supported DOGE and said that children are now being readicalized to hate capitalism as well as directly messaging the Trump administration to put pressure on Universities like NSF, SU and MIT because of DEI or something like that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Andreessen#Political_views https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Andreessen#Political_view...

lotsofpulp 9mo ago
One can support a party and then change to not supporting a party for a variety of reasons. Such as disagreeing with the direction the party is going, especially locally, or even as simple as eschewing the previously supported party because you are betting the other one will win and need to curry favor.
- afavour 9mo ago
  Sure, but why argue the abstract when we have Andreessen’s views and actions on record?
  - lotsofpulp 9mo ago
    I haven't studied Andreessen's views and actions, so I was just positing a strategic reason for a change in political support for a high profile person. (as opposed to a drastic change in their thoughts which is what I take to mean as "radicalized") For example, I have always preferred most of Democrats' positions on the national level, but on the local/state level, especially in California/Oregon/Washington, I disagree with a lot of the Democrat leaders, more and more since 2010 (I would say my views have not changed much, but the party's priorities at the state and local level have). Of course, I'm nowhere near as influential as Andreessen nor do I have interests that would warrant a say in national politics, but I can see why if one is against local leadership, they would cozy up to someone who they think can help you fight against them, without being "radicalized", per the above definition.
9mo ago

smashah 9mo ago

extremely anecdotal but whenever I see a racist on Twitter, there's a non-insignificant likelihood that I click on their profile and see Marc Andreesen following them.

lucaspm98 9mo ago

“Radicalization” to the OP likely means swinging from vaguely left-leaning to right-leaning.

p-e-w 9mo ago
I remember a time when entire discussion threads were swiftly culled from HN based on the magnitude of their political content. These days, it’s pretty clear that the direction matters a lot more than the magnitude, and “flamebait” is only a problem when the flames blow a certain way.
- DonHopkins 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - lucaspm98 9mo ago
    The reason political discussion needs to be limited is exactly for comments like these. Low effort characterizations of mainstream politics as racist or fascist is purely inflammatory, and only going to further turn HN into Reddit but for tech.

fsloth 9mo ago

He explains their pivot with Ben to GOP in this podcast episode. The main argument was that democrats policies were detrimental to their business. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_sNclEgQZQ&t=11s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_sNclEgQZQ&t=11s Mr. Andreessen has been involved with high level politics for a long time. This is not "random radicalization". I will not comment on the quality of the politics but it feels fairly deliberate.