The fact that an out of touch billionaire might say such a thing doesn't bother me much, he's out of touch after all.
The fact that we reliably and repeatedly see peasants (i.e. any less equal animal, so everyone here) who have no such excuse cheerleading for specific implementations in furtherance of their pet issues bothers me greatly. I'd say you ought to know better, but you do. When these subjects are discussed on a general level everyone acknowledges they're bad so clearly everyone gets it on a big picture level. But when the discussion is speed cameras, surveillance at the park, siphoning off of mundane consumer financial transaction data, etc, etc those things have strong support. People are clearly happy to put up with the threats posed by pervasive surveillance lest some other peasant step the slightest bit out of line and get away with it. I think this contradiction speaks volumes about character.
He's not out of touch. He's the first or second richest person on Earth, he has substantial influence over the president of the United States, and he's about to control one of the largest media empires in the country. You should be bothered by what he says because whatever dumb idea he has is going to become reality. He's one of the most powerful people on the planet.
Sure, he might know what he's saying in a sort of evil mustache twirling realpolitik way. But as someone who experiences everything in a different way than the other 99.99% of society because of his wealth and power he is tautologically "out of touch".
"we'll just surveil everything and use AI and it'll work" " = "let them eat cake". What he's peddling just won't work (in all likelihood) and everybody else (most of the other 99.99%) knows it.
Billionaires are out of touch because their money, their power, and their social circle insulates them from the challenges everyday people experience. Their goals are to find ways to protect and expand their wealth and their power. You don’t become a billionaire by looking out for other people.
Their goals and their perspectives should mean that they have absolutely no business making policy decisions for society but unfortunately people are naive and easily influenced.
It is pretty clear that Ellison seeks to shape the society he lives in and since he has the means to do so, that clearly makes him more in touch than every single ordinary person.
>Their goals and their perspectives should mean that they have absolutely no business making policy decisions
He doesn't make policy decisions and claiming he does completely undermines how corporations and their leaders wield their influence.
A very successful evergreen (authoritarian) playbook is to keep people anxious, so that they'll accede -- nay demand -- to ever more draconian, reactionary policies.
Something we're experiencing firsthand right now in the USA.
My gripe is even more meta than that. It's an unwillingness to mentally grapple with what they're advocating for and if they do understand it then
Like if we want to run society with summary execution for petty thieves or inequality under the law or whatever then fine, but have the balls to say that, because without an understanding of the goals and acceptable tradeoffs we can't effectively pursue the goals without hitting unacceptable tradeoffs.
But people don't come out and say these things because if you reason about the implications it's pretty clear they're shit ideas so what people do instead is lie and misdirect and whatnot in order to advocate for "bad in principal, arguably positive in result" things on their pet issue. But when you multiply by everyone's pet issues we get the current garbage and current trajectory.
I think part of the problem is that as material plenty increases the number of people partaking in discourse because they have existential problems that need solving goes down so discourse is increasingly dominated by "fake problems". This is also why you're seeing a pendulum shift away from "feel good" policies toward more "tough decision" policies as it gets harder for people in the lower majority of society (70%, 80%, idk) to make ends meet. So basically I'm hopeful that things get more honest and more sane as we get poorer, which sucks, I guess, but hey, silver linings.
The fact that we reliably and repeatedly see peasants (i.e. any less equal animal, so everyone here) who have no such excuse cheerleading for specific implementations in furtherance of their pet issues bothers me greatly. I'd say you ought to know better, but you do. When these subjects are discussed on a general level everyone acknowledges they're bad so clearly everyone gets it on a big picture level. But when the discussion is speed cameras, surveillance at the park, siphoning off of mundane consumer financial transaction data, etc, etc those things have strong support. People are clearly happy to put up with the threats posed by pervasive surveillance lest some other peasant step the slightest bit out of line and get away with it. I think this contradiction speaks volumes about character.