dinckelman@lemmy.world
on 30 May 2024 01:03
nextcollapse
Lobbying, and publicly traded companies, were both a colossal fucking mistake. We elect these people to be the voice for us, but they only act in their own interest, while a ton of money is flowing directly into their “donations” pocket
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 30 May 2024 04:55
collapse
Lobbyists weren’t legal until Reagan.
And that’s when the United States’ train ride to corporate authoritarianism went into high gear.
_number8_@lemmy.world
on 30 May 2024 03:13
nextcollapse
why are lobbyists allowed i mean come on
Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
on 30 May 2024 07:08
nextcollapse
<img alt="Stanley from the office with “Money” written under him." src="https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/f0774e24-b9ce-484c-97e4-882aa17f8846.jpeg">
General_Effort@lemmy.world
on 30 May 2024 13:49
nextcollapse
Because there is no easy way to ban in a democracy. Originally, the term means someone who hangs around in the lobby of congress (or such like) and talks to representatives when they come through. Imagine this is just some ordinary voter who has an important issue on their minds; perhaps someone like Raphael Lemkin. He did that. Non-profit organizations - like Greenpeace - lobby, as well. It’s hard forbidding lobbying without unintended side effects.
Even if you did, it might not get you where you want. Representatives would still have an open ear for major employers in their districts. After all, voters want those jobs. Representatives meet those bosses on many occasions, like charity events. Money and power can be used to get more money and power.
Personal access is only a part of it, anyway. People influence the media and fund political ads. There’s also funding for think tanks and universities. People with money and power (or fame) can do more of that.
Don’t assume this something that just happens behind closed doors out of the public eye. For example, you may have noticed the recent kerfuffle between actress Scarlet Johansson and OpenAI. OAI allegedly hired a voice actress that sounded too similar to ScarJo. This community here seems to have largely sided with ScarJo. Which means that they want famous people to receive a rent for lending out their voices; a rent which will be ultimately paid by consumers. And if you have a similar voice? Tough.
This is exactly something that many of these AI lobbyists are paid to achieve. They are supposed to get money for the rich people who pay them; preferably without the rich people having to do work.
mark@programming.dev
on 30 May 2024 18:26
nextcollapse
Interesting take I can appreciate, but hold on there…
This community here seems to have largely sided with ScarJo. Which means that they want famous people to receive a rent for lending out their voices
I dont think that’s what they mean at all. I doubt people care about ScarJo growing her bank account. I think most people who side with ScarJo just dont want Open AI stealing stuff it doesnt own, including people’s voices. Especially if they’re profiting off it.
General_Effort@lemmy.world
on 30 May 2024 22:33
collapse
That’s a bit of a fine point, but yes. They want famous people to have the power to demand a rent, other concessions, or to refuse a deal entirely. So it’s about more than just rent. It’s the same power that landlords have, but eventually it’s all about the money. If you equate it to stealing, then it’s about the money, no?
I think you can just outlaw paying someone to do this, not the lobbying itself, no?
General_Effort@lemmy.world
on 30 May 2024 22:23
collapse
I think it would be unconstitutional in the US in light of citizens united. I’m sure that there are many things that could be done, but no simple answers like just banning lobbying.
threaded - newest
Lobbying, and publicly traded companies, were both a colossal fucking mistake. We elect these people to be the voice for us, but they only act in their own interest, while a ton of money is flowing directly into their “donations” pocket
Lobbyists weren’t legal until Reagan.
And that’s when the United States’ train ride to corporate authoritarianism went into high gear.
why are lobbyists allowed i mean come on
<img alt="Stanley from the office with “Money” written under him." src="https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/f0774e24-b9ce-484c-97e4-882aa17f8846.jpeg">
Because there is no easy way to ban in a democracy. Originally, the term means someone who hangs around in the lobby of congress (or such like) and talks to representatives when they come through. Imagine this is just some ordinary voter who has an important issue on their minds; perhaps someone like Raphael Lemkin. He did that. Non-profit organizations - like Greenpeace - lobby, as well. It’s hard forbidding lobbying without unintended side effects.
Even if you did, it might not get you where you want. Representatives would still have an open ear for major employers in their districts. After all, voters want those jobs. Representatives meet those bosses on many occasions, like charity events. Money and power can be used to get more money and power.
Personal access is only a part of it, anyway. People influence the media and fund political ads. There’s also funding for think tanks and universities. People with money and power (or fame) can do more of that.
Don’t assume this something that just happens behind closed doors out of the public eye. For example, you may have noticed the recent kerfuffle between actress Scarlet Johansson and OpenAI. OAI allegedly hired a voice actress that sounded too similar to ScarJo. This community here seems to have largely sided with ScarJo. Which means that they want famous people to receive a rent for lending out their voices; a rent which will be ultimately paid by consumers. And if you have a similar voice? Tough.
This is exactly something that many of these AI lobbyists are paid to achieve. They are supposed to get money for the rich people who pay them; preferably without the rich people having to do work.
Interesting take I can appreciate, but hold on there…
I dont think that’s what they mean at all. I doubt people care about ScarJo growing her bank account. I think most people who side with ScarJo just dont want Open AI stealing stuff it doesnt own, including people’s voices. Especially if they’re profiting off it.
That’s a bit of a fine point, but yes. They want famous people to have the power to demand a rent, other concessions, or to refuse a deal entirely. So it’s about more than just rent. It’s the same power that landlords have, but eventually it’s all about the money. If you equate it to stealing, then it’s about the money, no?
I think you can just outlaw paying someone to do this, not the lobbying itself, no?
I think it would be unconstitutional in the US in light of citizens united. I’m sure that there are many things that could be done, but no simple answers like just banning lobbying.
Well yes it’s a given that Citizens United would need to be overturned for any of this to happen.
How are politicians supposed to learn about niche issues in the private sector?
Is this the death of foss ai. Cos if so we are all fucked
Ahh corporate lobbyists. The original AI.
They lack one important aspect of lobbyists: Clumsily whitewashed bribes.
Maybe outlaw lobbying
but how will our poor politicians become the millionaire superstars politicians are meant to be? /wrist