Activism. I'm curious why downvoters think their acquisitions aren't a form of activism. For instance, their coverage of an Amazon monopoly is very sparse, even given the recent Democratic economic policy statements which mention monopolies frequently. Billionaires wanting to control the press isn't exactly a shocking idea. Is buying a newspaper and controlling their output more or less offensive than Theil's funding the Gawker suit?
I'm a little unclear as to the logic of your argument. If you are implying that Bezos is controlling WP's output then wouldn't he have stopped some of the stories you posted? I don't remember when he took control, but I'd note at least two of those stories are from this year.
Maybe you think there should be more, but it's not like other news sources have huge numbers more.
(Also, your argument that Amazon is a monopoly isn't one that is widely made. I can't think of a single category where Amazon doesn't have meaningful competition. Just being successful doesn't make a company a monopoly.)
There is no question that this is the reason. Many billionares have sought to control the public narrative by buying media outlets. It's easily the most effective way to ensure that their personal views are served up to the public. Same reason that Putin started RT.
To me, saying "Bezos doesn't influence Wapo's output" is like saying, "Oculus will remain an independent entity inside Facebook." Not something I'm inclined to believe. Why should one believe that the billionaire (and new richest man in the world) at the helm of a major monopoly isn't influencing WaPo's content?
You are arguing from disbelief, but nevertheless relatively independent observers really do seem to believe that Bezos is taking a hands off role with the reporting choices of the Post:
It is possible that a well run, honest, independent newspaper is still a viable business model, if guided smartly in the online environment; maybe Bezos really just believes that? If so, then robust editorial independence would be part of the business model.
"I don't believe it" is not very convincing evidence. Oculus and the Post are not really comparable, nobody (statistically) cares how independent Oculus is. Even if you want to look at this from a purely business perspective - editorial independence is part of the product. It's also what ensures you can attract real journalists.
Some level of independence is possible. There may be contracts in place that guarantee the editorial board control over news content, and most newspaper journalists are unionized.
That's the evidence you've presented against my assertion, as neither of us would know the real answer. My links above could be perceived as control because a predominantly left wing paper is defensive of a company who runs afoul of a popular left wing issue, trust busting. It's as much about what isn't talked about as what's on the front page.
To quote you from higher in the thread, "But it seems to be in their long term interest to have a fair, balanced political system and liberal society as we have now in the US." Is buying a news paper to promote that idea not a form of activism?
I think you may misunderstand what left-wing people generally think. This quote from the above article summarizes it quite well:
Jon Leibowitz, a former Democratic chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, said the agency has a duty to challenge any deals that could end up hurting shoppers.
“Think about the Amazon business model — that’s typically bringing down prices and enhancing innovation, which is a benefit to consumers,” said Leibowitz, now a partner at the law firm Davis Polk. “But the FTC is a very professional agency, and they’re going to pay attention to any substantive concerns raised by outside parties.”
I’m not sure who you’re quoting but it’s not me. Also, you are the one making a strident assertion, you can’t really just say ‘none of us knows!’ when asked to support it.
Seems like you have a reason to be defensive, throwaway account. I'm suspicious of any billionaire who buys a newspaper, for reasons I've been arguing in this thread - the very real potential for bad behavior.
Potential, sure, but that is a potential with any newspaper. You don't need to own one to buy it off. Why not just critique amazon directly for what they're doing? What ARE they doing again that requires coverage?
"Will Farnaby is a cynical journalist shipwrecked on the fictional island of Pala, a Buddhist paradise where modern science and technology is embraced only insofar as it can improve medicine and nutrition, not for industrialization; drugs are used for enlightenment, not for pacification; and the evils of corporatism are unknown."
"The final novel from Aldous Huxley, Island is a provocative counterpoint to his worldwide classic Brave New World, in which a flourishing, ideal society located on a remote Pacific island attracts the envy of the outside world."
I'm dying to hear you expound on exactly what Marx actually says and why what he says shouldn't be taken seriously. Cites and quotes while you're at it, please. (No third parties, please--he clearly doesn't need the help.)
A basic primer is linked below for you. I'm sure you'll have wonderful, super duper insightful, and super smart commentary on it. Looking forward to it!
Have you read that piece? Because I have read it before, and Domhoff writes with regards to Marxists rather than Marx. If you're going to slag Marx for what Leninists and their derivatives have decided to read into it--well, that's a pretty curious thing to do. Not uncommon, because frankly most people haven't actually read Marx and are unqualified to opine, but I know for a fact that Domhoff has, which makes this...well, like I said--curious.
The one criticism of that article I do have as far as what people he perceives as "Marxists" think (and I'm not one, though I do think that the general shape of what Marx describes, as opposed to either Marx's end-state conclusions or Marxists-the-fear-object group might believe) is that social democracy, which I will helpfully point out is not "Marxism", has also fairly obviously demonstrated its bones over the last decade-plus, after the article's writing, as that late-capitalistic model has created additional, shitty stresses on populations. Free market uber alles has catastrophically failed in every nontrivial employment, and while heavily-planned or fully-planned economies have obvious problems, social democracies the world over have this tendency to mostly work. I won't call them a global maximum, because that's impossible, but they have a decent claim to a local one.
Anyway, let's be real: this isn't a "basic primer" and it doesn't contain the argument you thought it did after you googled "Marxism critique". You don't have to like the way things are going, but if you're gonna pretend to an opinion, maybe give it an honest go before you offer it?
We've asked you many times not to post uncivilly like this, so we've banned the account. We're happy to unban accounts if you email us at hn@ycombinator.com and we believe you'll post within the guidelines in the future.
Yes, that tends to be how startups come off - even the "sophisticated" ones. They tend to have minimal knowledge of the steps necessary to turn their prototype into a mass produced thing: DFM/DFF, supply chain management, identifying/negotiating with component/bare board suppliers, etc. Generally speaking, they need lots of hand holding through the entire process, and that makes it take way longer for everyone.
The nature of stateside electronics manufacturing doesn't help startups much in that regard, in that shops are kinda either set up for NPI and rapid prototyping or not. Sierra Circuits is good for that, but idk how well they'd fit with a startup budget. Beyond that, the low-complexity nature of most IoT products means they're more cost effectively manufactured in China, as most US shops focus on low to mid volume runs of high complexity boards, as opposed to high volume low complexity runs. Figuring out how to manufacture in China can be a big obstacle for any company, especially smaller ones.
What works for me with Hugo (because I'm already using these tools all day anyway) is to keep the site in a Github repository.
Then when I make a change it triggers TravisCI to do a full site rebuild. (Takes longer to install Hugo than to actually run it)
Then once it's built, Travis has built in support for uploading to S3, and away we go.
Doesn't work for everyone, but it's really smooth and simple for me, I can even just go to Github, create a new page, and save it right there from the site. Which means I can edit from any device I want.
1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/11/11/at-th...
2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/amazon-isnt-technica...
4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/01/30/amazo...
5. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/is-amazon-getting-to...