The term “mogul” is currently trending due to a significant spike in search interest spurred by multiple news events. Notably, the Olympic debut of “dual moguls,” a new winter sports event, has garnered considerable attention. The dramatic and unpredictable nature of this sport, as highlighted in the New York Times article, attracts a wide audience eager to learn more about this exciting addition to the Olympics.
In another noteworthy development, Les Wexner’s appearance before a House committee regarding Jeffrey Epstein has drawn considerable media coverage. Wexner, known for his status as a mogul, is involved in high-profile discussions that resonate with ongoing public interest around prominent figures and controversies, resulting in increased searches related to his name and status.
Additionally, a report from Yahoo Finance discusses a Blackstone mogul warning about the urgent need for AI preparedness while simultaneously transforming his considerable fortune into a philanthropic foundation. This link between influential business moguls and pressing contemporary issues like artificial intelligence contributes to heightened search interest, reflecting a broader curiosity about the roles and responsibilities of wealthy individuals in today’s society.
Watch the Moment
Internet Reacts
S
Anyone who thinks Facebook, Instagram and Twitter can’t influence elections and insight civil unrest in a matter of hours is living under a rock. Just think about it, bunch of AI slop pushed to the feeds of triggered people and boom you just started a riot.
B
Absolutely. Coming up to election day the shootings change from being personally connected (a school, a workplace) to being ideological (a gay nightclub, a church full of strangers, a podcaster you’ve never met) and I’m pretty sure it correlates to the increased add spending on incendiary subjects that are designed to impact the way people vote.
L
You are 100% correct. And I will add that in a few years, but probably months, Ai slop will be indistinguishable from real slop.
O
Conversely if social media didn’t have this power the right wouldn’t have been tripping over itself to purchase Tik tok
K
The Real Problem is they rat you out and moderate how they See fit. I strongly believe that doxxing ICE agents and organizing civil unrest should be the way for the people that are against the deportation of citizens. That’s what your 1st amendment is for, isn‘t it?
Y
True story: I was a project manager at Twitter (not ‘X’) many many many years ago. And I can definitively say that there were a number of discussions about how the platform could be used to influence regime change all over the world. And there may or may not have been some cheering and high-fiving amongst people when Gaddafi got drugged through the streets at what teams may or may not have been responsible. When Elon took over Twitter and release the, “Twitter files”. There were a significant amount of documents that expose direct involvement between Twitter and multiple governments.
D
People have right to free speech. Corporations do not have a right to define free speech.
1
free speech does not mean pretending to be a news outlet and push out fake news to incite hate
I
Most forms of lying are protected speech.
J
…in the US. Free speech protection depends obviously on legislation and the US definition is not universally accepted.
L
Well can’t have it free from one side only. That’s called censorship. But anyway the 1st amendment only protects the citizen from the government, private entities can do whatever they want.
F
America doesn’t have free speech either. In fact the press freedom index sees US around place 60. Just another paradox world they live in. It’d be a lot simpler if their companies just respected other country’s laws and operated within them
I
So because America free speech isn’t perfect, we should let foreign governments make it worse for everyone? No thanks.
F
What are you talking about. The eu only dictates what goes on in the eu. If american companies dont like it they can fuck off
I
The idea of compartmentalizing the internet like that smacks of Communist China or Putin’s Russia. If I want to communicate with someone in Europe or vice versa, I should be able to. If it’s offensive, oh well. Macaroon is proposing a great EU firewall so he can decide what speech is acceptable. That’s not acceptable.
F
Again, not what he’s proposing lol
V
Funny that is exactly what the US has done already and their version of TikTok banned any ICE or Epstein discussions. All I hear is the US not liking that we no longer let their tech oligarchs use social media to control public narratives.
F
>let foreign governments make it worse Americans: being manipulated by undisclosed algorithms = better 🤡
I
Im sorry that keeps happening to you. Maybe try and be less manipulatable
F
You have kids? Or does your brain not function beyond what fox news tells you
L
Yeah Trump and his administration been pushing “fake news” to incite hate since 2016, not to mention Faux News Entertainment. FOH with that. Free Speech covers a lot and it’s up to us to sort out the truth and bs but, that’s where education come into play and learning how to cross-reference instead of taking everything at face value.
G
Conspiracy, misinformation, lies, extremism, hate fuelled rhetoric and incitment of violence is not free speech!?
I
No it’s not free speech. Because it’s “conspiracy, misinformation, lies, extremism, hate fuelled rhetoric and incitment of violence.”
G
Exactly, and the social media platforms use the free speech argument because they are unable to effectively remove the content that is destroying critical thinking and essentially democracy. But democracy has always been ‘controlled’ through misinformation and propaganda/PR. Edit: I’d highly recommend ‘Century of self’ on YouTube. Plus ‘the chaos machine’ book
N
Truly free speech needs no definition.
I
Corporations define optional terms of use to access their product. You’re under no obligation to use their product if you don’t like the terms.
A
The EU has the right to define terms and conditions of the social media platforms available in the EU. They don’t share the constitution with the US, they have their own rules!
I
So the EU has a right to be as oppressive to its citizens as it likes? That’s a very nihilistic pov. What Macaroon is really saying is that the European people having too much freedom of speech is threatening to his political ideology. That’s why he’s scared.
I
And so the name calling starts. Why am I not surprized?
I
Aww, did I hurt his feelings? No wonder he wants to censor people. Leading a country may not be something he’s suited for.
G
You literally just made this up.
F
Corporations still need to comply with local legislation. They are free to not provide their product if they can’t do that.
H
This weakness can be escaped by switching from corporate products to P2P networks like today’s version of BitTorrent or tomorrow’s version of nostr
I
Sure. That being said, not all laws are good laws. Macaroon is upset because there’s a trend where Europeans being allowed to speak their minds freely is causing his political party headaches. He’s not the good guy here.
F
> there’s a trend where Europeans being allowed to speak their minds freely is causing his political party headaches. The trend is state sponsored misinformation and disinformation campaigns aimed and promoting extremist views. There have been multiple operations that have been uncovered primarily driven by Russia but also China and oran. As long as social media companies are making money off not networks and such campaigns they have no incentive to stop it.
I
I see that as two separate issues. Nation states attacking other nation states, be it physically or in cyberspace, is a governmental problem that companies should cooperate with intelligence and law enforcement to counteract. That should not require censorship of political opinions or speech even if narratives overlap.
S
100% correct. Social Media has pushed to the right in the last number of years, and the answer is always “free speech” – Bullshit!
C
And then there’s a huge mismatch between profits and responsibility. A newspaper or a TV station is accountable for the illegal content it publishes or broadcasts. Social media companies make billions by spreading content they are NOT responsible for! It’s an aberration.
I
So, will you hold the phone company liable if someone on the other end lies to you? Does the same go for email?
O
Unlike phone, which is (mostly) 1to1 communication – social media is used to broadcast lies to millions at the same time
I
The principal is the same. Is it the technology providers responsibility to decide if you can criticize Israeli Jews or not?
O
There’s a huge difference between public and private conversations. And I’m shocked I even have to say that
I
There is no difference other than the threat that the democratization of information dissemination poses to the old information monopoly that powerful corporations and governments used to have. Macaroon and his ilk want to take us backward to a time he could control what the truth is.
C
What a wrong argument yours is! Does the telephone company earn money from advertisements during phone calls?
I
They certainly earn money from people using their services lol
C
In fact. They don’t earn from the contents of the phone call.
I
Social media doesn’t earn from the content of my post either. They earn from use of the service. Same as the phone company.
A
They absolutely earn from the contents of posts that aim to manipulate viewers because these viewers then spend more time on the platform and can be served more ads. Platforms are thus incentivised to turn a blind eye to actual fake news and other ragebait content that is corrosive to democracy. States need to demand transparency on the algorithms used by these platforms or take steps to protect their citizens from potential manipulation. These algorithms are now a form of psychological warfare and have been weaponised by foreign state actors, and having nothing more to do with free speech.
H
Agreed. Free speech is great. False advertising, media manipulation, and scammers are what social media tyrants want to label as free speech. Thats like claiming that calling in bomb threat is free speech.
B
Free speech is not an absolute right. There have always been laws curtailing hate speech and/ or inciting violence.
Additional Sources:
