what does this have to do with the story?

Well in part because Israel acts like a police state supported by a lot of Orwellian technology

Example: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_(spyware)

If the targets are in other countries, deployed by other countries, I don't think this is a good example.

Better example? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/25/microsoft-bloc...

The single largest private donor the IDF is pushing for a very anti American policy. I think it’s extremely relevant to point out their true loyalties lie elsewhere.

> what does this have to do with the story?

This is like seeing a web page not load due to a 504, then asking why people are discussing a database failure when your page isn’t loading.

Patterns like Ellison are rife in American politics (look at some of trumps major donors, guys like Bill Ackman were lifelong dems that suddenly because conservative after Oct 7). It’s the reason we’re one of the only countries defending the genocide in Gaza. It plays a large part in our otherwise polarized congress showing bipartisan support for financing Israel’s “defenses”.

America makes a lot of anti American decisions because guys like Ellison are some of the most powerful in the country.

How could Ellison's motivation for creating a surveillance state possibly not be relevant?

> How could Ellison's motivation for creating a surveillance state possibly not be relevant?

What is his motivation? Why is Israel relevant?

He's trying to create a digital panopticon to silence dissent and enslave Americans to Israeli interests.

You're asking how Israel is relevant in American politics?

How is Israel relevant to a Jewish person!?

> what does this have to do with the story?

Historical precedent:

> It was the first conflict in which military action was precipitated by media involvement. The war grew out of U.S. interest in a fight for revolution between the Spanish military and citizens of their Cuban colony. American newspapers fanned the flames of interest in the war by fabricating atrocities which justified intervention in a number of Spanish colonies worldwide.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_propaganda_of_the_Spa...

* https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/yellow-journa...

It is relevant because Ellison's concept of "best behavior" includes being pro-Israel. And he is in a position to implement this across the properties he now owns including TikTok, and CBS News and possibly more if he also acquired CNN.

If anybody even insinuates that Weiss or Ellison have dual loyalty because of this they will be accused of anti-semitism.

The hard truth is that weaponizing your money — earned largely from Americans — to aid a foreign country at the expense of America is about as un-American as it gets. Aside from the potentially valid argument that your voice shouldn’t be louder just because you are a billionaire — you are corrupting American foreign policy and American stature in the world to advance the agenda of Israel. That is a betrayal of America.

> anybody even insinuates that Weiss or Ellison have dual loyalty because of this they will be accused of anti-semitism

No, they’ll be accused of derailing the conversation.

Every pro-Palestinian activist isn’t civically compromised because they have strong views on foreign policy.

> you are corrupting American foreign policy and American stature in the world to advance the agenda of Israel. That is a betrayal of America.

This is a convoluted and hyperbolic way of expressing foreign-policy disagreement.

> expressing foreign-policy disagreement

Foreign policy is almost universally a quid pro quo. Whilst there may be something for the USA in this it feels very asymmetric unless I am missing something.

> Foreign policy is almost universally a quid pro quo

At the state level, often. At the individual level, I don't think so.

My pet war is Ukraine. I don't have any personal stake in the war. I just think it's abhorrent and poses a long-term risk to the security interests of places and people I care about. I can construct that into a narrative of fulfilling American geopolitical interests, but that's an exercise I'd be engaging in after I'd come to my view based on, essentially, a moral preference.

That preference is real. But it's mine and far from universal. That someone thinks Russia is justified in invading Ukraine is frankly irrelevant to the validity of their statements on other matters. That's where I'm calling bullshit on this connection.

You are missing quite a bit. It is not obviously quid pro quo in diplomatic relations but on that point you are partially correct. If the US for one reason or another cuts ties with Israel, it loses its main influence in the middle east and other countries would probably quite happily pick up the tap. Only some are from the region, others are not.

All this has absolutely nothing to do with Larry Ellison and frankly this whole thread is mostly idiotic. It could have been an interesting topic but some seem to have other priorities. Which are quite transparent.

How is it hyperbolic? Talk to foreigners. People are universally disgusted with the US and it is not all because we have an anti-immigration, nationalist administration. People are disgusted with the fact that the US wrecked Iraq, Libya, Syria, and bombed Gaza to smithereens before starving its people.

"Dual loyalty" is kind of a joke for somebody like Ellison, because it implies a loyalty to America.

I’m glad that we are at last having this kind of conversation. Just a few years ago this was simply impossible. There’s too much vermin in the elites.

It's "simply impossible" because people like you make new accounts and use words like "vermin". You are not helping!

What others have been doing thus far has not been helping either. The problem just gets worse every passing day. How many have to be killed using American money until this problem is eradicated?

I think most of the pro-Israel crowd legitimately believe that Israel's interests are aligned with the U.S.'s interests. The same with Canada, the U.K., and Australia. We share a set of values.

Israel does a lot of dirty work in fighting back against the darker forces of middle east terrorism, and it's reasonable to believe it is in the U.S.'s interest to let Israel do that work rather than take it on itself. It is a similar argument to why the U.S. should back Ukraine in the fight against Russia.

You can of course disagree with the above (arguing against interventionism; the risk of blowback; that Israel is creating more terrorism than it is solving; etc.), but I truly don't believe that any of the pro-Israel crowd believes they are acting against the U.S. interest.

That’s a study shoehorn…

Would his statements be better if he were pro-Gaza or something else?

> Would his statements be better if he were pro-Gaza or something else?

How about he and CBS News and TikTok be neutral and truth seeking rather than being pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian? I would like news organizations to be truth seeking and I would like social media to not be tinting my view of the world towards what their billionaire owners want.

Maybe that is too much?

> How about he and CBS News and TikTok be neutral and truth seeking rather than being pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian?

I agree. But easier said than done. Especially when it comes to something as polarising as Gaza, playing the moderate essentially cedes the debate. (Both sources you mention are supported by ads. Their metric is engagement, not informativeness.)

> Especially when it comes to something as polarising as Gaza

One should expect news sources to report that the main Israeli human rights groups believe it is a genocide, the main international human rights groups believe it is a genocide, UN investigatory panels believe it is a genocide, genocide scholars believe it is a genocide:

https://www.btselem.org/publications/202507_our_genocide

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-inter...

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/israel-has-c...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cde3eyzdr63o

Those that disagree with this assessment are in a minority. But to you it is just "polarizing."

You are denying reality that is in front of you because you want to. And this is resulting in more families being wiped out, people starving to death and for Netanyahu and his coalition that want to "voluntary migrate" the Palestinians away from Gaza for Israeli settlements: https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/24/middleeast/israel-approves-pr...

Well, yes, it would be better if he didn't amplify propaganda for the country that is committing a genocide and would raise awareness for the victims.

Is this not self-evident?

The point is this comes down to a foreign policy disagreement that isn’t germane to Ellison’s comments on surveillance. (I can come with a litany of policy disagreements with anyone of Ellison’s stature, some of which I probably feel about strongly.)

Read in good faith, it’s overzealous advocacy. In bad faith, which I don’t assume here, it serves to get this discussion flagged off the front page.

You don't think that the fact that Ellison is a staunch defender of regimes that disregard the international order in favour of military might is relevant to the fact that is also advocating for building a surveillance state?

In case you don't, to me it's painfully clear that these are just different aspects of the move towards more authoritarian forms of government. You CANNOT support a genocide and expect that this will not have an effect on democracy.

EDIT: Also note that I am trying to take your comments on good faith, but characterising support for genocide as "a foreign policy disagreement" feels a bit like an understatement.

> it's painfully clear that these are just different aspects of the move towards more authoritarian forms of government

Sure. But, like, the evidence for that is the advocacy for a surveillance state. Not his support for a foreign policy project that yes, involves supporting an autocratic government in Israel (fighting, let’s be fair, an autocratic force in Gaza backed by an autocratic state in Iran), but also a whole bunch of other irrelevant things.

I don't think I understand your point, beyond downplaying the severity of current events.

> beyond downplaying the severity of current events.

He is definitely calling it "polarizing" and minimizing it. I infer that he is supportive of it then.

I’m not downplaying the severity of anything. Just its relevance. Someone can be severe and irrelevant, and I think that’s the case here.

Your language suggests a sort of "explaining away" that is pernicious in certain cultures abroad.

These things are not happening in a vacuum:

1. Ellison's comments about surveillance

2. Conservative billionaires, including Ellison, consolidating ownership of social media, print media, TV media, etc.

3. NSPM-7 & the current admin's appetite to criminalize speech

4. The current administration kowtows to Netanyahu, who relishes in conservative ownership of TikTok

The dots are all there: if you express something that doesn't following an accepted US stance, like maybe its stance on Israel, maybe on TikTok, it gives Trump the ability to easily find, label & punish you as a terrorist, maybe even at Netanyahu's request. Trump's desire to do things like this has been explicitly stated since the death of Charlie Kirk. He's always talked about his desires to throw his political enemies in jail.

Even before this, the admin has been targeting people like Mahmoud Khalil, Mario Guevara, etc. for speech.

It would certainly better support his statement that the people are on their best behavior if being monitored.

If his statement is true, then the real Larry Ellison (not publicly known one) is worse than a genocide supporter. He basically discredits himself by making that statement.

> It would certainly better support his statement that the people are on their best behavior if being monitored

It literally wouldn’t. Whether people behave better when surveilled in independently verifiable. Whether or not bees exist doesn’t revolve around the political beliefs of the person claiming they do.

I found it amusing that someone would say something to the effect of "killing people is the furthest I am willing to go, but not further", as if there is any further...

Anyway, I agree it is a verifiable fact, but it also can be a personal belief. Does L.E. provide any evidence, or is he stating it authoritatively?

In any case, one big piece of evidence we have for the claim is that Israel doesn't allow any foreign journalists in Gaza, and is trying to control Tiktok, in which L.E. seems to be involved.

So by pointing that belief out, L.E. indicates he is even a worse guy, because in some cases he disagrees with such independent monitoring.

> one big piece of evidence we have for the claim is that Israel doesn't allow any foreign journalists in Gaza, and is trying to control Tiktok, in which L.E. seems to be involved

This is relevant! Consider how much more interesting the top comment would be if it called out this hypocrisy instead of the same old 'so and so is pro X and herego a bad guy'.

Yeah. His property would be better without Lanai in them, his businesses would be better without him at the helm, and his opinions would indeed be better if he wasn't rationalizing a genocide.

Larry Ellison cannot be anthropomorphized. His entire life is one sociopathic, misanthropic soap opera.

Yes, because I have less trust in people who support genocide than those who do not.

You took an interesting topic and completely sidelined it with irrelevant info.

It is on topic because Ellison's "best behavior" includes being pro-Israel and it is likely to be implemented on CBS News and TikTok. I think others agree with me based on voting patterns.