| I also find it curious if not distressing that this wasn’t pinned at #1 all day. To be clear: I’m quite sure that @dang is deeply committed to running a clean shop on moderation. But whether something highly unlikely and slightly sensational like a finger on the scales, or the far more likely and utter banal explanation that people in vast numbers see their fates as intertwined with the status quo, the result is the same: on some deep institutional level HN is never going to hold Altman to account. So the question becomes, what authority handles the cases the community can’t? On paper that’s regulators and legislators. Those folks ostensible and actual missions aren’t identical, and differ more with time, but they intersect at “prevent would-be autocrats being so brazen as to provoke de facto revolt”. The public doesn’t hate Big Tech generally and its sociopath fringe specifically enough to make it a true wedge issue yet, but it’s trending that way. I’d go so far as to say that most almost anyone breathing the Bay air isn’t capable of truly internalizing how deeply the general public loathes the modern Valley machine: it’s dramatically more than Wall St at any time. It’s getting even trickier than usual to predict which historical social norms are still bright lines, but “profiting personally via using a charity as a vehicle for fraud” is still putting popular people in prison with bipartisan support. And Altman isn’t popular even here. He’s feared here, but loved almost nowhere. |