i care because he's been an invited guest on news shows for a couple years now.
i personally have found it on obnoxious that we were holding up this one rich guy as someone we should be listening to, based off seemingly his wealth. imo his qualifications seem slim... (he once sold some operating systems to ibm, & took advantage of strong antitrust winds in that situation). rather than poll experts & trusted advisory types, we've had this kind of vacuous weird up-and-coming media-personality figure Bill Gates to stand in & tell us how to think, what to think. don't we have better role models, people better qualified? don't we have experts, & synthesists, in depth reviewers, & trusted ranks? why pick him? it felt weird having a representative from the ultra-wealthy like him on screen & quoted so often, so regularly. we were being pushed, inexplicably, bill gates, for reasons that were extremely unclear, and it was scary. his media image was being built up and up.
no one's pushing anything anymore; that is the story. what was being pushed unraveled, fell apart. the noise you talk about, to me, is finally clearing. the agendas and mystery of the circumstance are dissipating into more of the same old story, the sunlight is reaching what were the less explored corners of this new, in the making media icon. this Bloomberg article bookends the noise, brings to a close this saga of this particular figure regularly be called up to the stage, for no real apparent reason. i hope it is a sufficient eulogy for this weird strange disturbing media habitalization & mobilization, that we can put this weird era behind us & find better people with less biased (less ultra-capitalist) perspectives to give screen time & press quotes to.
i'm willing to accept ambiguity, to not draw judgement personally. but the specters of doubt here seem fairly real, & like a good enough cause to do what we should have been doing: finding better people who can better tell us stories of the world about us & how we ought navigate our times.
He's personally given billions to helping resolve major global challenges, and he's intentionally used his influence and visibility to advertise ideas that he thinks need broader attention. There doesn't need to be a conspiracy or any more to it than that.
6 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 15.1 ms ] threadno one's pushing anything anymore; that is the story. what was being pushed unraveled, fell apart. the noise you talk about, to me, is finally clearing. the agendas and mystery of the circumstance are dissipating into more of the same old story, the sunlight is reaching what were the less explored corners of this new, in the making media icon. this Bloomberg article bookends the noise, brings to a close this saga of this particular figure regularly be called up to the stage, for no real apparent reason. i hope it is a sufficient eulogy for this weird strange disturbing media habitalization & mobilization, that we can put this weird era behind us & find better people with less biased (less ultra-capitalist) perspectives to give screen time & press quotes to.
i'm willing to accept ambiguity, to not draw judgement personally. but the specters of doubt here seem fairly real, & like a good enough cause to do what we should have been doing: finding better people who can better tell us stories of the world about us & how we ought navigate our times.
with bill gates, they need some one to replace george soros.