Society/Culture The Big Tech billionaires and their influence

[Frank Bunn]

Mark Zuckerberg is talking directly with Josh Frydenberg as a result of Facebook’s decision to ban Australians from sharing news stories.

Twitter's Jack Dorsey prohibited the elected president of the USA from communicating with the American people.

Bill Gates has a massive influence on global health policy.

No one elected these guys. They are not accountable to anyone. Yet their billions give them unprecedented influence over governments, NGOs and media organisations.

Should we be concerned about the influence of the Big Tech billionaires?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Mark Zuckerberg is talking directly with Josh Frydenberg as a result of Facebook’s decision to ban Australians from sharing news stories.

Twitter's Jack Dorsey prohibited the elected president of the USA from communicating with the American people.

Bill Gates has a massive influence on global health policy.

No one elected these guys. They are not accountable to anyone. Yet their billions give them unprecedented influence over governments, NGOs and media organisations.

Should we be concerned about the influence of the Big Tech billionaires?

so the Dorsey stopped Trump appearing on TV, on radio, in newspapers, in townhalls, at rallies, in the white house press room?

I didnt realize he had that much power!

 

[Chief]

Mark Zuckerberg is talking directly with Josh Frydenberg as a result of Facebook’s decision to ban Australians from sharing news stories.

Twitter's Jack Dorsey prohibited the elected president of the USA from communicating with the American people.

Bill Gates has a massive influence on global health policy.

No one elected these guys. They are not accountable to anyone. Yet their billions give them unprecedented influence over governments, NGOs and media organisations.

Should we be concerned about the influence of the Big Tech billionaires?

We should tax them properly, for a start.

 

[Frank Bunn]

We should tax them properly, for a start.

That's small fry.

 

[FireKrakouer]

People tend to not give a damn, until it's their "side" who is being silenced. Cancelling a sitting POTUS from social media is one of those things that many are too deranged to see the significance of (for now).

FB is a boomer haven, so blocking journalism from it in Australia is waking people up. Time to splinter these platforms into a thousand pieces and scatter them into the wind.

 

[Evolved1]

People tend to not give a damn, until it's their "side" who is being silenced. Cancelling a sitting POTUS from social media is one of those things that many are too deranged to see the significance of (for now).

FB is a boomer haven, so blocking journalism from it in Australia is waking people up. Time to splinter these platforms into a thousand pieces and scatter them into the wind.

Trump cancelled himself.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Mark Zuckerberg is talking directly with Josh Frydenberg as a result of Facebook’s decision to ban Australians from sharing news stories.

Twitter's Jack Dorsey prohibited the elected president of the USA from communicating with the American people.

Bill Gates has a massive influence on global health policy.

No one elected these guys. They are not accountable to anyone. Yet their billions give them unprecedented influence over governments, NGOs and media organisations.

Should we be concerned about the influence of the Big Tech billionaires?

The influence is all inside your head.

Frydenberg is the one calling Zuckerberg. You can share news on plenty of other platforms.

Trump had 24/7 access to the press gallery, how did Jack stop him from using it?

You are obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed, and/or a thinly veiled troll.

 

[owen87]

Should we be concerned about the influence of the Big Tech billionaires?

Short answer, yes. Long answer, still yes, but in the same sense that we should be concerned with the ability of any ultra-wealthy individual or corporation to influence politics.

 

[Brad Goodman]

Slightly different, but is it a stretch to say Elon Musk is driving the price of bitcoin?

 

[M Malice]

It's not only Big Tech billionaires, what about Big Oil, Big Pharma, The Military Industrial complex, global business conglomerates and THE big one.. Big Finance/Wall Street.

Does anybody really think the likes of Trump, Biden, Scomo, Boris etc run the global economy, the vast majority of them are puppets for their benefactors, money is power, it buys influence and encourages sycophantic politicians... always follow the money to see where the real power lies.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Slightly different, but is it a stretch to say Elon Musk is driving the price of bitcoin?

Nah, Bitcoins biggest gains were made before Elon started tweeting about it.

Doge will rise 5-10% within minutes when he tweets about it though. Which in turn could trigger a mass buy or sell, so it goes both ways.

 

[owen87]

Slightly different, but is it a stretch to say Elon Musk is driving the price of bitcoin?

Not driving it, but the more publicity it gets, the more it grows, the more publicity it gets etc...

Dogecoin was 100% Musks doing, the value of that absolutely exploded because of his tweets, i'm sure he made a truckload off that.

Most crypto investors do so hoping that the coin(s) they choose will go gangbusters, someone like Musk can pick a cheap coin and be the one who makes it go nuts. It's like gambling when you already know the winner of the race.

 

[Mofra]

People tend to not give a damn, until it's their "side" who is being silenced.

Exactly.
The people outraged at the Facebook decision seem ok with media billionaires

 

[The Passenger]

Where were you guys when "lefty scum uni students" were protesting about big finance, big oil, big media, big pharma, big whatever having too much influence over society.

Welcome to the party. Always room for more.

 

[Taylor]

You want to see how much power big tech has over the world right now? Propose a policy that would cost AWS some more money for operating into your nation.

Alternatively, propose that news media groups that have an online presence have a 5% tax rate if your current opposition party is elected. Have the entire side championing the policy as good for the people as a free press should be free as much as possible from burdens.

Watch every single one of them suddenly shift to hating the existing government and every single story you read will be about how horrible the existing government is and how good for the nation the change to the opposition will be.

And your people have no ability to access alternative news sources. You believe what you're told to believe and they will change the tune they tell you to dance to when it suits their needs.

 

[The Passenger]

The internet was on the verge of becoming a great egalitarian society. There were hundreds of search engines, social media was just starting to flourish, loads of chat applications... There was even loads of browsers people could play around with.

But then a handful of people of worked out how to monetise and more or less monopolise each part of the tech sector and dominate that market. Everything has gotten way too serious and It's really fallen to s**t since then. Us 90's tech kids sure had a good thing going for a while.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I'm honestly surprised that so many people think facebook is the only place on the internet to access news, BOM, etc etc.

 

[Taylor]

The internet was on the verge of becoming a great egalitarian society. There were hundreds of search engines, social media was just starting to flourish, loads of chat applications... There was even loads of browsers people could play around with.

But then a handful of people of worked out how to monetise and more or less monopolise each part of the tech sector and dominate that market. Everything has gotten way too serious and It's really fallen to sh*t since then. Us 90's tech kids sure had a good thing going for a while.

I think if you could communicate to people that they are the product being sold it would change their perception.

Everything costs money and the things that are free for you - that's when you're being sold to someone else.

It's the business model for almost every site out there, including Bigfooty, except here we are both the flowers to attract other bees and the honey sold to advertisers.

Can you imagine if there was a movement to have contributors paid a cut for the interactions their content generates?

 

[Taylor]

I'm honestly surprised that so many people think facebook is the only place on the internet to access news, BOM, etc etc.

You don't need to be allowed to drive when you have two perfectly good feet.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Can you imagine if there was a movement to have contributors paid a cut for the interactions their content generates?

Yo, Taylor, I'm really happy for you, I'mma let you finish......

 

[Taylor]

Yo, Taylor, I'm really happy for you, I'mma let you finish......

Is this the version of reality where the previous sentence talking about Bigfooty falls out the other side of someone's head before they read the next?

 

[Seeds]

Mark Zuckerberg is talking directly with Josh Frydenberg as a result of Facebook’s decision to ban Australians from sharing news stories.

Twitter's Jack Dorsey prohibited the elected president of the USA from communicating with the American people.

Bill Gates has a massive influence on global health policy.

No one elected these guys. They are not accountable to anyone. Yet their billions give them unprecedented influence over governments, NGOs and media organisations.

Should we be concerned about the influence of the Big Tech billionaires?

we shouldnt be concerned about their influence. We should be concerned about our economic system that allows people to attribute wealth in the billions.

 

[Taylor]

we shouldnt be concerned about their influence. We should be concerned about our economic system that allows people to attribute wealth in the billions.

Why?

If the influence of a billionaire isn't the problem why is the accumulation of wealth through the free trade of services or the invention of new goods a bad thing?

This thread has listed the people responsible for inventions that billions of people have used in the last month.

 

[Seeds]

Why?

If the influence of a billionaire isn't the problem why is the accumulation of wealth through the free trade of services or the invention of new goods a bad thing?

This thread has listed the people responsible for inventions that billions of people have used in the last month.

Those inventions arent curing cancer or feeding the poor. They are making shopping more efficient or enabling people to watch cat memes. The utilitarian gain for society is positive but minor.

they should certainly be well rewarded because people want those things. And we should also be incentivised to provide things people want. But a billion dollars? You get thats 1000 million right? you take 500 million from them and their utility is basically unchanged. Their consumption is basically unchanged. You reduce combined workers taxes by 500 million dollars and the benefit for society is dramatic.

we all agree on a welfare capitalist system. The argument is on the allocation. Billionaires should pay a lot lot more so middle and high income earners dont have to pay as much. The only reason billionaires dont pay a much higher share on marginal income is because of their political influence. Doctors, lawyers, scientists dont have such political influence.

ironically the guys who are inventing the vacciness to save modern society probably dont even earn millions lets alone billions.

 

[Taylor]

Those inventions arent curing cancer or feeding the poor. They are making shopping more efficient or enabling people to watch cat memes. The utilitarian gain for society is positive but minor.

they should certainly be well rewarded because people want those things. And we shouod alo be incentivised to provide things people want. But a billion dollars? You get thats 1000 million right? you take 500 million from them and their utility is basically unchanged. Their consumption is basically unchanged. You reduced combined workers taxes by 500 million dollars and the benefit for society is dramatic.

we all agree on a welfare capitalist system. The argument is on the allocation. Billionaires shouod pay a lot lot more so middle and high income earners dont have to pay as much.

Just so we are clear, the only way this can work is if the state seizes half the shares of the company that a billionaire owns. You advocate for the government to decide how much wealth is acceptable and then seizing the rest to distribute at $38.50 per person ($1 billion divided by Australian population roughly 26m)?

I don't have any problem with people having free dealings with people who freely give them money because what they created is deemed of value to them.

I do have a problem with their ability to control the free flow of information to people who are either so used to their information flowing through the service or have no other means of accessing it/don't know how to. Being able to manipulate the reality of people who don't know anything better is a threat to the nation.

We can be told that people of another country are both hating us and living in horrible conditions to justify our public support of military action against their government - when it could be more about protecting the sale of oil in US dollars over Yuan.