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.
Not necessarily. Broadly. Advocacy, petitioning, calling, electioneering, drafting, lobbying, organising, et cetera.
A civically inactive citizenry frankly doesn’t have that much to lose from surveillance. Someone failing to exercise their political rights (EDIT: leaving them unexercised) pretty clearly communicates the value they place in them.
Genuinely asked if you’re politically engaged because I’m curious how that squares with your views on this topic?
Most Americans are not civically engaged. That’s sort of expected. Their principal opposition to surveillance revolves around being creeped out. Most folks who are civically engaged, on the other hand, recognise the risks to themselves and their projects if the opposition can command these tools. (As well as the power that would come with commanding them oneself.) If that link is no longer true, or not universally valid, I’m genuinely interested in hearing it. Because that implies independent civic action can survive—or potentially even thrive in—a modern surveillance state.
Seems a lot more an indictment. Maybe you might consider phrasing it differently.
I'm a recovering drug addict. I have quite an appreciation for privacy and anonymity. I have a lot more skin in the game than most.
However, there's the fantasy world in our heads, and the reality of the truth. These don't always overlap.
It's my job to work with yucchy reality. It doesn't give a damn what I think it should be. It's my responsibility to modify my approach to be most effective, given the context.
"When the map and the terrain disagree; believe the terrain." - Swiss Army aphorism
> People do act differently when they know they are being watched
I really want to see more evidence for this. People act differently when they face consequences. More surveillance without enforcement wouldn’t be expected to positively change behaviour.
Just ask GPT, the awareness of being observed significantly impacts behavior even in rather primitive animals:
Research has demonstrated these behavioral changes in various species, including:
Primates: Monkeys and apes often alter their social interactions and grooming behaviors when they know they are being observed by humans or other primates.
Birds: Studies have shown that birds may change their foraging behavior when they detect human presence, often becoming more cautious.
Fish: Some fish species exhibit changes in swimming patterns and social behavior when they sense they are being watched.
These behavioral adaptations are thought to be evolutionary responses that help animals avoid predation and enhance their survival in the wild.
behavior will only get worse once people figure out that enforcement will either be entirely selective (based on the friends of whoever controls the programming) or entirely arbitrary. people will wish for anarcho-tyranny.
This. All that will happen is that if you come to the wrong person's attention your 'record' will be checked and consequences leveled. Too much happens in the world for our system to punish everyone. But to be able to selectively punish whoever you want at the push of a button, that is power. Maybe you didn't do anything. But your kids? Your business partners? Someone did something, if we record/save everything and look closely. Even if you are perfect we can make you a pariah if it get's known that anyone around you risks themselves/their children getting backlash for associating with you.
> 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.
> 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:
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
There are more than two countries in the world. Italy, for example, without pervasive monitoring and overt spying of its citizens, is at 0.545, half the UK rate.
Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, just to name a few, are all below the UK rate.
This relies on, normatively, shame, and legally, a Stasi-esque police state. I don’t know what about the last twenty years of politics or culture would imply the former is an option.
“America’s sophistication is reflected in the depth of its financial markets. It is unusually good at creating tradeable claims on the profits and revenues that its economy generates. In a more primitive system, these spoils would mostly accrue to the state or tycoons; in America, they back a vast range of financial assets.”
> It means that the xenotransplantation technology is progressing rapidly and will soon become widely available
It also validates the platform. If it can last for 6 months, chances are there isn’t some catastrophic failure mode that would keep it from lasting for 6 or 60 years.
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.
reply