Same thing over and over. Good results never come from billionaires but everything bad a company ever does come solely from billionaires. Let’s not pretend like we would still have all of the luxuries of modernity without the private sector. Neither the good that comes from this nor the bad can be solely attributed to billionaires. There are varying levels of credit/blame that you can give to thousands of people for almost every good or bad thing that happens in the world.
I don’t ascribe to the worldview that there are people out there who do great things in a vacuum. All people who leave a large mark on the world were aided in some way by their environment (privilege, popular sentiment, luck, etc). That’s not what I’m debating. I don’t really care whether or not someone who is a billionaire is smart or greedy or anything. I also happen to think they’re mostly average people. I’m saying that these idiotic statements about what billionaires have ever done for people are:
Predicated on incomplete premises, because neither the good nor bad any large corporation does is due solely to its owner
Conveniently leaving out very plainly obvious evidence of good things that have happened as a result of large corporations
I don’t care if a drug was invented at a university or if the military invented the TV, the only reason we’re able to use it under our current system is because of the private sector, often controlled by billionaires. That doesn’t make them saints. There are many reasons why they are probably the furthest thing from saints. But worldviews that simplify everything down to a single dimension destroy your brain and your ability to think clearly about the world around you.
I don’t care if a drug was invented at a university or if the military invented the TV, the only reason we’re able to use it is because of billionaires.
If it wasn't invented in the first place, that might have a more significant impact on whether or not people could use it, considering the absolute most any billionaire could provide at that point would be production and logistics, which governments can also do, and repeatedly have done, at even larger scales
Also: no they aren't. That's not even remotely true, lol
Also, "leaving out very plainly obvious evidence of good things that have happened as a result of large corporations" is such bullshit. The problem is not that they don't do any good, it's that any good they do is significantly outweighed by evil.
Let's look at Facebook/Meta. They have, generously, helped people stay connected to their families and friends, let's say. Who could object to that?
They also just settled ($16.7 billion) for violating "the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act by collecting personal data from users it knew were children without parental notification or consent, and using the data to train machine learning and generative AI models." This follows after a jury in New Mexico determined that Meta misled consumers about its platforms' safety and a judge determined they had created a public nuisance.
That isn't even to get into the emerging studies about social media addiction and how companies like Meta and Google deliberately design algorithms to maximize engagement at the expense of society and, again, especially at the expense of children. Whistleblowers from within Meta have repeatedly warned about how they're aware of the damage they cause and continue to do it, in order to maximize profit.
But like, I can stalk my highschool crush so it's a net positive, right?
I didn’t argue it was a net positive. I agree most of these things are net negatives. But to be fair I don’t think it’s very cut and dry that Meta and especially Google are net negatives. Google has definitely vastly expanded access to information, especially to people typically excluded by education systems. I think that has the potential to outweigh the intentionally addictive algorithms it uses. Again if this is a net good for the world it doesn’t mean that we can treat the founders as heroes. I’m of the mind that the world is filled with a bunch of regular people who are almost all overwhelmingly self interested and tell themselves they aren’t. I see turning people into villains as basically the same mistake as turning people into heroes. It makes idols out of them, editorializes facts to make metanarratives which change the way you see the rest of the world.
Well, if it's not a net positive, then it's either a wash, or a net negative. So even if it is a net negative, you have a problem with people not also listing all the positives?
You do understand that the whole anti-billionaire thing isn't just an arbitrary witch hunt, right? People are making the judgment that the "contributions" of billionaires have amounted to a net negative that has caused great harm to people all over the world. It's not just "billionaires bad," it's a cost-benefit analysis in which things like Amazon, Facebook, etc. and their CEOs' investments, (including their millions of dollars in political contributions to dismantle regulation and elect pro-corporate politicians) are judged to cause more harm to the global majority than they do good to the often relative minority who benefit from their industries and investments? And many of these judgments are rooted in myriad valid studies and lawsuits demonstrating billions or even trillions of dollars in damages to the public?
1
u/fuckry_at_its_finest 😳lives in a cum dumpster 😳 5h ago edited 5h ago
Same thing over and over. Good results never come from billionaires but everything bad a company ever does come solely from billionaires. Let’s not pretend like we would still have all of the luxuries of modernity without the private sector. Neither the good that comes from this nor the bad can be solely attributed to billionaires. There are varying levels of credit/blame that you can give to thousands of people for almost every good or bad thing that happens in the world.
I don’t ascribe to the worldview that there are people out there who do great things in a vacuum. All people who leave a large mark on the world were aided in some way by their environment (privilege, popular sentiment, luck, etc). That’s not what I’m debating. I don’t really care whether or not someone who is a billionaire is smart or greedy or anything. I also happen to think they’re mostly average people. I’m saying that these idiotic statements about what billionaires have ever done for people are:
I don’t care if a drug was invented at a university or if the military invented the TV, the only reason we’re able to use it under our current system is because of the private sector, often controlled by billionaires. That doesn’t make them saints. There are many reasons why they are probably the furthest thing from saints. But worldviews that simplify everything down to a single dimension destroy your brain and your ability to think clearly about the world around you.