> 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.