I think you are falling into the fairly common "George Soros is evil" narrative and it causing you not to listen to what Soros actually is saying in this particular case.
Soros actually is focusing on three well established points that others also regularly make - these are quotes from the article:
(1) “This is particularly nefarious because social media companies influence how people think and behave without them even being aware of it. This has far-reaching adverse consequences on the functioning of democracy, particularly on the integrity of elections.”
(2) In addition to skewing democracy, social media companies “deceive their users by manipulating their attention and directing it towards their own commercial purposes” and “deliberately engineer addiction to the services they provide”. The latter, he said, “can be very harmful, particularly for adolescents”.
(3) Soros warned of an “even more alarming prospect” on the horizon if data-rich internet companies such as Facebook and Google paired their corporate surveillance systems with state-sponsored surveillance – a trend that’s already emerging in places such as the Philippines.
He isn't talking at all about social movements or populism on Facebook or Google, not at all. Remember that those are often outside of those platforms generally these days, such as Telegram in Iran or Twitter.
I feel like your comment is bringing in an axe to grind because of other grievances with Soros, rather than dealing with what he is actually saying in this particular article.
At least for the first two points, Soros does the same thing:
1) George Soros also tries to manipulate how the public thinks and feels with his media campaigns
2) he manipulates people’s attention to focus on his political interests
Not saying either are particularly in the right for doing these things but it’s a little funny that this is so alarming for him, a major political donor and influencer
I guess this is sort of a weird article, just saying what others have said but this time repeating it because the source, Soros, is unique and for some has more authority because is very wealthy. Basically nothing is new in the criticisms.
We strive for a higher level of discourse at HN.
FWIW, I have convinced myself that ubiquitous surveillance is pretty much inevitable as a side-effect to automation of infrastructure, so the question is how to manage it (rather than whether.) Right now we are seeing a split between "Morlocks" and "Eloi" where there is a huge gap between the understanding of the folks working at these AI-developing super-silos and the understanding of Joe and Jane User on the street.
The insidious thing is that sufficient storage + innocous tech can be transformed into surveillance... when everything's aggregated.
Right, but it seems then you're saying that surveillance is more of an intention than it is a set of technologies. Some technologies make those intentions easier to act upon certainly, but the concept of "surveillance" needs to be defined better so that we can recognize what specifically makes it sinister.
Have you ever heard the old bit about how “a lie is best hidden between two truths”? I think a lot of people steer clear of truth from someone they don’t trust because they know what the next thing will be.
It’s counter to another saying, “if a thief tells you murder is bad, does that make him wrong?” But life is complicated.
Also, you're contradiction yourself, because if Soros is all about starting populist movements, and Facebook and Google enable that, they would be his closest allies.
> The main narrative that Soros promotes is "nationalism is racism" and the corralary "strong states are fascist".
Did you catch the part about him being a Jew who survived Nazi-occupied Hungary?
Not that I'm agreeing with the OP, but their point is subtler: Soros has his own tools for enabling whatever populist movements he wants to start. Shutting down Facebook's/Google's ability to empower populist movements denies others that same power, so it's of benefit to him (by letting him alone have that power).
The internet has new forms of influencing power that the previous media did not have. What he warns against is the centralisation of those powers in the hands of a few players, and the possibility of these players working together with totalitarian governments to create a dystopian surveillance state (personally, what I am even more freaked out about is the idea of a decentralised totalitarian surveillance state - there was a recent Wired article on how China is experimenting with this).
The claim that Soros has a "strong states are fascist"-rhetoric does not make much sense either. This is what he actually says in the article:
> “The internet monopolies have neither the will nor the inclination to protect society against the consequences of their actions. That turns them into a menace and it falls to the regulatory authorities to protect society against them,”
There are no business incentives for Facebook and Google to clean up their act, so he explicitly calls for more regulation. How is that not asking for a strong government? Of course, that's not what GP meant with "strong states". His "strong states are fascist" claim is that weird kind of self-denial that you typically see with people defending fascist governmental actions, but not wanting to be called fascist.
It typically plays out like this: person A argues that "government X is fascist, because A, B and C", where A, B and C are typically human rights violations carried out by X. Then person B, who is pro-X, reasons "But A, B and C are ways for our state to be strong! X is not fascist, you are just against strong states!" No, person A isn't against strong states. Person B just has ridiculous definitions of what a strong state is. The governments of the Nordic countries enforce a ton of regulation on companies within it. I would consider that a strong government. Few would call it fascist. Person B would probably call it weak.
In my experience every populist movement can be traced to a single charismatic leader with a dictatorial streak who promises the moon and the sky to the hapless masses. I am and forever will be thoroughly unimpressed with any populist movement. It will always end badly.
I would say populous movements usually pre-date their charismatic leaders. Trump supporters aren't anti- immigration because of Trump, rather it was by embracing an existing populous anti-immigrant mentality that he achieved power.
I guess you think of the single leader as the "centralised" focal point of a populist movement. I agree, but it's not what the word centralised refer sto. Instead, it refers to the media being centralised or not.
Any leader needs a platform to broadcast their message from. Centralised media have (some) selective power over the narrative, and therefore the role of gatekeepers or enablers (like when controversial figures get disproportionate attention because it causes more clicks - see also [0][1]).
The decentralisation aspect of the internet undermines that, which in itself is value-neutral. This is not something that never happened before; the printing press allowed Luther to bypass the gatekeeping powers of the Catholic Church[2]. As I mentioned elsewhere, this lead to massive social upheaval ending in the Thirty Year's War, so it's not all positive (worth noting is that Luther's biggest issue was with the so-called "indulgences", which allowed people to buy off their sins[3][4]. How is that for unfair wealth inequality?)
The point is that the printing press meant that a lot more voices could be heard by a lot more people. The Internet takes that to the next level. A lot more of those "single charismatic leaders" suddenly have a potential audience (this might explain why I feel disdain for most YouTubers: a lot of them want an audience for the sake of having an audience, without having a story to tell).
The Internet decentralises populism because it decentralises all communication. Clay Shirky (from whom I stole the printing press example) has written a lot on this[5].
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34LGPIXvU5M
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-five_Theses
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence
[5] https://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_the_internet_will_...
There's a fallacy here involving your assumption that all populist movement follow the same agenda.
If they don't, they're clearly not allies, but rivals.
> Soros posed as the Christian godson of an official of the collaborationist Hungarian government's Ministry of Agriculture, who himself had a Jewish wife in hiding.
> Tivadar not only saved his immediate family but also many other Hungarian Jews, and George would later write that 1944 had been "the happiest [year] of his life," for it had given him the opportunity to witness his father's heroism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros
Hiding with a pretend-collaborator who saved many Jews is not "working with the Nazis"
On top of that, it is crass and naive at best to compare the current xenophobia of nationalists, to having to survive a fascist dictatorship whose officials can kill you any time they feel like it simply because you have a certain ethnicity. In practice it comes across more like a bully trying to paint himself as the victim.
All else being equal, those who have the least difficulty with admitting they are wrong, are wrong the least often.
> Rumors have circulated since protests and riots broke out following the election of Donald Trump last week claiming billionaire globalist and notorious meddler George Soros is backing the anti-Trump movement in an attempt to further destabilize the nation. Although the links thus far have, indeed, circumstantially indicated Soros’ involvement, the connections haven’t been entirely clear — until now.
Yeah, I don't think I need to sit through that for 60 minutes before I draw my conclusions.
I think that a lot of the noise about the man is bogus. I also would rather be aware of facts than close-minded.
There’s even satire material which I find hilarious where he’s blamed for the cold weather and stuff like that.
How about honestly evaluating the situation? People will often criticize Google, Facebook, etc, until they work for them, after which they rationalize.
It really isn't relevant whether you worked for Soros or not. What matters is what's true. If what he's saying is true, then you have to deal with it.
I have seen a reversal on people's attitude on Soros in Eastern Europe. Initially he was seen as a benefactor, just someone wanting to bring openness and promote democracy to various parts of the world.
Eventually people realized he brings his own version / vision of "openness" and the end goals of his NGOs and movements do not necessarily align with the interests of the country they operate it. Not that the interests of the local government align or are beneficial to the local populace, either but that doesn't automatically make his influence a positive thing either. (The enemy of my enemy is not automatically my friend, I might just have 2 enemies now).
Nowadays with much of Eastern Europe having pretty decent democratic societies (lots of problems still and the Russian influence has grown a lot lately) his ideas aren't seen as a pure "positive" contribution but more like a variation with its own pros and cons of the systems already in place.
Personally (like I said elsewhere in the thread) I own much of my professional life to one of his foundations and as such in my book he is a hero and a person that had a huge positive contribution on my life.
Of course, Soros is not alone in this regard, though he is an important figure. Piketty has called CEE "foreign-owned countries" given the extremely outsized control of the wealth and resources of these countries by Western companies (consider that 80% of the media in Poland are owned by foreign companies, mostly German). When foreign companies dominate the capital of a country and (usually through capital) influence the politics in a country, this is bad. Very bad.
Then there are the problematic values Soros promotes. It's one thing to share what you believe with others and allow them the space to consider your views. It's another to insinuate yourself and your views through a web of NGOs and other organizations.
Uh.. he can pay for media campaigns on Facebook too, just like many others are doing it with the "fake news".
Which, even if Facebook decides to forgo profits in favor of "good", doesn't preclude a government passing a law that "All social media sites much prefer regime news stories over anything else."
The ADL complains that any statement that Jews contribute to anti-Semitic feelings, is anti-Semitic. This is also a tactic that right-wing Israeli politicians use to deflect criticism.
Do you mean the ADL? Citation? Because googling "ADL Soros" finds lots of examples of the ADL condemning attacks on Soros as anti-Semitic, but nothing I can find credibly sourced of them condemning Soros as anti-Semitic.
Which is entirely backed up by the history of ultra-nationalist states.
Trivial counterexample: "All bananas are fruit" does not imply "All fruits are bananas".
Facebook is really a perfect tool for people like Soros. You can promote whatever news or opinion you want if you have the money, targeting whichever group you want.
Anyone with a big enough bank account can take advantage of this centralized platform to influence people on a vast scale.
No, i think all those mentioned did follow self determination, ultimately.
But now the people who championed it no longer denounce imperialism but instead promote a new imperialism, globalization.
The way an "enlightened" Frenchman or Italian might view Turkey is very, very different from how a Bulgarian (such as myself) or Serb would view them. As to who's more "correct" in their view, well - that's a whole different subject.
These are complex issues and calling Hungary a bunch of racist twats is exactly the same as what Hungarians are doing to "refugees", who, interestingly enough, are disproportionately young men, in good physical condition, running away from countries that are not Syria or otherwise in a state of war. Some of the photographs I've seen of the border crossing show a distinct and very noticeable lack of women and children. And that in itself is also a very interesting subject we could debate for hours.
and you trust those photos?
There's also pictures of groups of boat refugees that show a large imbalance, which is true of those using that mode of transport, who often leave women and children to follow on once they've found a place because of the extreme danger of the route (which, yes, might evidence some degree of non-progressive concept of gender roles, but that's not the issue being raised.)
Isn't George Soros also 'dismantling democracy' by influencing elections in places he is not a citizen of?
In other words, democracy is a tool, not an end in itself.
No, he isn't. If someone from the outside is influencing the system to preserve key characteristics it has, they aren't subverting the process.
No one thinks foreign election observers sent to oversee contested elections are the heralds of the end of democracy; quite the opposite.
So the example is, depending on how you look at it, either irrelevant or diametrically opposed to the point you offer it to support.
Hence we can distinguish between interventions aimed at subverting the democratic process and interventions based upon reinforcing them.
Whether or not Soros' interventions are enabling democracy or subverting them is a separate debate. My statement is just to show that the premise that 'any' interference is anti-democratic is demonstrably false.
The main narrative that Soros promotes is "nationalism is racism" and the corralary "strong states are fascist". This is why he is unpopular with nationalist governments in Eastern Europe for example that reject EU immigration rules and why he attempts to undermine those government's legitimacy in Hungary for example. He can pay for media campaigns to support his positions and he can exert influence financially over media networks, but he can't control the masses on social media which thwart his vision.