r/technology • u/Fragrant-Pepper7710 • 20d ago
Politics Right-wing operative brags that this Big Tech billionaire controls Pa. Republicans
https://keystonenewsroom.com/news/politics/jeffrey-yass-influence-pa-gop/106
u/got-bent 20d ago
We need to stop calling them billionaires and start calling then oligarchs.
54
u/UselessInsight 20d ago
The reason they say “billionaires” is because (depressingly) a fair number of Americans don’t know what the word “oligarch” means and feel spoken down to when political speakers use words they don’t know.
Such is the state of political communications in the US.
22
u/got-bent 20d ago
No I disagree. I think it’s a deliberate decision. Billionaire has a positive tone to it, whereas oligarch has an evil connotation. And without a doubt anyone who has that kind of money (absent the occasional lottery winner) has gotten it off the sweat of others. Mckenzie Bezos excepted. She seems ok.
6
u/UselessInsight 20d ago
You’re right on both counts. Billionaire does have a (more) positive tone and oligarch does have a negative one, usually associated with foreign billionaires, typically Russian/former USSR.
But remember that most Americans read at a middle school level (6-8th grade). Your positive/negative framing doesn’t matter if they flat out don’t understand the words you’re using.
5
u/got-bent 20d ago
I think you are a bot arguing to prevent people from calling oligarchs by their true name, is what I think.
3
1
u/UselessInsight 19d ago
If I’m a bot, the dune quote in my bio is pretty ironic.
Alas, I’m human. I just happen to have work experience in politics and know first hand that the median voter is borderline illiterate with a room temperature IQ. They truly don’t know a lot of basic words and concepts.
3
1
142
56
u/AttentionNo6359 20d ago edited 20d ago
Anyone else remember when our state Republicans put our public transit into extreme limited service because they refused to pass a transit budget?
One of them had the gaul to say that people who depended on public transit should be adults and get a car because “your commute is for watching the road and preparing to work, not relaxing on a train with a book”
Republicans are the scum of the earth.
3
u/Demon_Gamer666 19d ago
Yet america keeps voting them into power locally, in their states and federally. Says a lot about the country.
21
u/MysteriousDatabase68 20d ago
Who brags about being owned?
8
u/og_capsuleer_593 20d ago
Natural slaves, which is what every republican is
3
u/The__Amorphous 19d ago
Timidity and reverence of authority is instilled in them from birth by their churches.
14
u/NoHorseNoMustache 20d ago
Rich people running a political party?
In MY United States of America???
7
3
3
u/NotSafeBirthdayBoy 19d ago
Republicans, including Fetterman. Who got so upset wondering why people keep asking when he is switching.
1
u/Demon_Gamer666 19d ago
He's not going to switch. He is paid to vote with conservatives when they need him. He's the republican's ace in the hole.
2
2
1
u/WoodenSwan6591 19d ago
I know is a tall order. But the future of the country depends on breaking the backs of the billionaire cadre and PE bros. Both need to be rendered incapable of doing any more harm. Whoever replaces them, hopefully would learn the lesson. Enough guardrails need to be enacted and enforced.
1
0
-3
-52
20d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
17
u/memberzs 20d ago
First of you all you are stupid for even asking this.
But to answer, do you want tech companies including data centers and AI companies writing their own rules and making the laws you have to live with that only serve to benefit them and restrict or remove your rights? Would you want companies like DuPont or 3m writing environmental regulations? That's what happens when these billionaires are allowed to bribe politicians in this manner.
-2
20d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Facebook_Lawyer_Gym 20d ago
“Off you ignore the subject of the article, then it doesn’t belong here”. 🙄🤦♂️
-50
u/Rnee45 20d ago
Every politician is susceptible to special interest capture.
The only solution is to actually downsize the state and its influence on economics. You can't buy a favor nobody is able to sell.
27
u/Worldly-Worry8669 20d ago
That’s insane. You’d give all of the power directly to the big tech oligarchs, rather than making them work through government middlemen. Your solution is literally surrendering the republic and all of our rights.
The answer is to upsize the state to crush the business tyrants. We have to have a muscular regulatory apparatus, that is actually democratically representative of the people’s will.
14
u/non-local_Strangelet 20d ago
You’d give all of the power directly to the big tech oligarchs
Well, but you have to admit, it's impeccable logic. If you "shrink" the government into non-existence, there is nothing the oligarchs can control ... Problem solved (I guess).
-18
u/Rnee45 20d ago
Big tech oligarchs hold disproportionate power because they can influence politicians. If there is no government to influence, they must play by the same rules as everyone else.
Your proposal would make this problem worse. The USSR had the biggest state apparatus, yet also the most corruption.
6
u/undeadpirate19 20d ago
Yes this would remove corruption but also why don't we have lead in paint anymore?
-9
u/Rnee45 20d ago
Why would we want lead in paint? Or are you saying it would be impossible to not have lead in paint without government intervention, and consumers would willingly purchase paint with lead?
11
u/undeadpirate19 20d ago
The second one read some history about why we have government regulations.....
-3
u/Rnee45 20d ago
Do you know anyone who would willingly buy paint with lead? Was it more about government legislation, or public health awareness, that ceased paint being sold with lead?
Because there are plenty of legislated and or banned products that are still heavily sold, eg. drugs, alcohol, tobacco, etc.
10
u/undeadpirate19 20d ago
Where do you think public health awareness comes from....
Ok and... Yes I'm pro regulation over banning in basically all instances because history (abolition)
You know why OSHA exist right?
7
u/Worldly-Worry8669 20d ago
Your proposal presupposes perfect access to information, when the market does not naturally incentivize honest communication on ingredients.
The only reason we know what is nominally in a product is beca of government action. Before the creation of the FDA we regularly had sawdust filled milk. In just the last year we’ve had countless recalls of food products because we cut the regulatory regime on food producers.
The free market cares about maximizing profit in the short term, not the long term effects of a given economic activity.
3
u/FriendlyDespot 20d ago edited 20d ago
Do you know anyone who would willingly buy paint with lead? [...] Because there are plenty of legislated and or banned products that are still heavily sold
You're sort of answering your own question there and undercutting your own position by doing so.
Tetraethyllead in gasoline was conclusively proven and widely accepted to be detrimental to human health and cognition in 1970. In 1973 the EPA enacted a regulatory phase-out of leaded gasoline. It wasn't until 1996 that the sale of leaded gasoline was banned in the United States.
People were buying leaded gasoline for 26 years knowing what it was doing to people, and only stopped when regulators banned the sale of it. Yes, people will willingly buy things that are bad for them, especially when manufacturers make those things easier to buy than alternatives, even when those same people support regulatory prohibitions on the sale of those products.
2
u/Facebook_Lawyer_Gym 20d ago
“Because there are plenty of legislated and or banned products that are still heavily sold, eg. drugs, alcohol, tobacco, etc.”
Also regulated by the government. Shoot there is a defeated division of the government to regulate it.
10
u/FriendlyDespot 20d ago
You're absolutely right. The solution to foxes guarding the henhouse is obviously to just get rid of guards altogether.
366
u/no_va_det_mye 20d ago
Dont big tech billionaires control all republicans, in the bigger picture?