Luigi Mangione represents an idea that is uncomfortable to certain people in power. It's okay to attribute millions of deaths to Hitler when he gives the order to kill and condones the decisions his subordinates make to carry out that order. But they don't want to let the poors normalize the idea that a healthcare CEO should be considered similarly responsible for many intentional deaths when he gives the order to deny as many claims as possible especially when they are clearly valid and urgently needed. Brian Thompson is responsible for many deaths. It's not fair to say he isn't just because he didn't kill directly with a gun.
I'm inclined to agree, they don't want people starting to consider social murder as a crime worth seeking justice for, because the entire government is complicit in a vast network of social murder. An enormous yearly sacrifice all in the name of preserving 'markets' for housing, food, transportation, and healthcare.
Hilarious that we forewent a more neutral public option over fears about “death panels.”
At the end of the day, I think the problem is that so many people don't identify Thompson as a killer. I think if more people saw Thompson as a killer, sympathy would be less controversial.
I don't condone vigilante murder, but this is a case where I think the calculus that Mangione did to conclude the benefits of his action outweigh the consequences was probably correct and that there wasn't a more reasonable way to address his grievance. And if you do something wrong and it turns out for the best, you still did something wrong, so get outta here ya little rascal and don't let me catch you again.
I think the calculus that Mangione did to conclude the benefits of his action outweigh the consequences was probably correct
How so?
There are only so many ways to increase profits in a medical insurance company:
- increase premiums - limited by law and competition
- expand customer base - customer acquisition is expensive
- reduce operating expenses - policy payouts are probably the most expensive operating cost
Any CEO sees the same options, so killing one won't really solve anything. You get to send a very public message, yes, how likely is that to change something? Not very, especially with the incoming administration.
So to me, killing a CEO is very likely to result in either imprisonment and/or death and unlikely to directly cause change. It'll spark some discussion on the news, but is that really worth throwing your life away?
Maybe it was the best way he saw to bring immediate attention to his cause, but I don't think it's the best way to actually fix anything. He's a CS student, surely he could learn some hacking skills and access some internal communications that exposes illegal activity, no? That takes longer, but is probably more effective at actually sparking change than murder.
You could also argue that it’s a very American roots level of civil disobedience that harkens back to the 1770s. So it’s hard for them on multiple levels.
Here’s an interesting thought. The CEO is not the only one responsible at this company. His board and also his staff are responsible. We can’t say that they are just following his orders because it’s not Hitler’s military where disobeying an order could get you jailed or killed. This is at-will private employment we’re talking about and they’re all making their own decisions to participate.
So: how far down the ranks would Luigi need to kill in order to address the whole problem? CEOs are an appealing symbol of everything but we really should think past just them. For example, yes their salaries are ridiculous but all together they are also just a drop in the bucket. Bringing CEO pay into line would not fix America by a longshot.
It's going to continue to be a problem for moderators, because people genuinely want the death of billionaires and CEOs. Every for-profit platform is going to ban calling for the deaths of CEOs, because the owners of the company don't want that kind of speech around.
This is why decentralized pseudo-platforms like the Fediverse are so important, so people can make their actual thoughts, feelings and desires known, and speak to each other about it. When Luigi capped Thompson, we all got this amazing moment where our pain hurt and rage were validated through knowing we weren't alone in our desire to kill the ruling class. That's genuinely dangerous to people like Thompson.
It's not just that - somehow 20 years ago being happy about Saddam Hussein's death wasn't something to be moderated, neither was being against it. People would call to kill all kinds of people. I think printed newspapers and TV weren't all that reserved either.
It's now, in our time, when censorship is being treated not just like something normal, but like something that has always been there.
And also you can't build a civilization by the rules that it makes. You'll have less and less entropy on each stage, and you will come to a rules' deadlock, and if you don't resolve that deadlock violently, then your civilization dies. And preferably deadlocks will be resolved violently before they threaten the whole of your civilization.
So yes, one crook managed to appear clean before law, but was wasted by a brave young man. Cheers to Luigi for doing what the legal system should.
20 years ago the net didn't have to be 1000% advertiser friendly
If we can't say kill or fuck, then its way harder to have a meaningful discussion about it, one that isn't shoehorned into a pre built narrative that must include murder is bad, but cannot say murder is not only bad. For example.
If we want to thrive, we must be allowed to err on the wrong side (whatever side that is).
But I guess we'll be harder to manipulate if we are allowed to discuss.
Any moderator who bans violent speech should be treated by the users as corrupt, and their community should be avoided.
That's genuinely dangerous to people like Thompson.
He is just an officer in the cartel, he is not the owner class.
People who are lashing out against public opinion are the real owners. They know that if public starts naming them, it will get uncomfortable.
They need a docile and divided population so they can keep looting.
No country has this much corporate grift, it is a beautiful set up.
The billionaires are hoping we'll forget and move on if they prevent discussion because he's a threat to their power. I'm hoping for a Streisand effect.
I'm hoping for a Streisand effect.
It does rely on free flow information and they are targeting it. They don't want plebs having unsanctioned discussions surrounding the deposed CEO.
We are in uncharted territory. I have never seen the public and ESP social media users be this united on anything.
Fake news spend a month steering the narrative but theh were barely able to split the right. They need this story to go away on their terms.
Streisand effect isn't really possible if all discussion is quashed. That's why they are so desperate to keep the news cycle away from him. He could use a PR firm to wage his case in public view.
Pretty sure the feds did that by charging him with terrorism.
Legal eagle did a video about it. If they only charged him with murder, all they would talk about in the court room would be the cctv footage and weapon. Because they charged him with terrorism, they have to prove he had a specific political motive, which means the court case will drag on for months discussing his motive. The public will have plenty of opportunities to discuss Brian Thompson during the trial, as long as the media is still interested in publishing it.
(Also, by charging Mangione with terrorism, the prosecution is running a big risk of not meeting the standard for terrorism or politicizing the jury so much that they nullify)
Why is he a threat to the power of billionaires?
Every revolution begins by breaking the rules to bring someone untouchable under the status quo to justice. There is a very real threat of copycat vigilantes or worse that public sentiment will somehow lead to actual change. Power seized by the proletariat is always a threat to those with power.
The fact that Business Insider is even suggesting it needs to be moderated tells you which side they're on, and what consent they are manufacturing.
Umana's posts are pro-Luigi (and some have unorthodox angles, like saying he wasn't the shooter, which authorities have charged him with).
Ah yes because someone is "being charged", that means that its unorthodox to presume innocence...
I guess there are times when a protest actually works. The thing is, shutting up all the Robin Hood bards just makes people want to learn their songs all the more.
Even some lemmy mods where suppressing it.
I mean if you write things that would lead to the instance being shut down if they arent deleted, then yeah, that will get "suppressed".
But i agree, some mods/admins were a bit trigger happy.
YouTube's content moderation policies forbid "content praising or justifying violent acts carried out by violent extremist, criminal, or terrorist organizations."
well so since Luigi Mangione isn't an organization, sounds like that isn't covered by these "content moderation policies"? Right?
Obligatory reading:
It will continue to be a problem for moderators because of the way they moderate and the terms they outline to moderate by. They leave gray areas for things that are against the law but that they feel are perfectly ok, but not for other things that are against the law that they feel aren't. They don't provide clarity about the law in their locality, and they don't always stick to their moderation in a way that would make it the same for all users and that's the problem. Additionally they don't want to be blamed for anything or take backlash for anything so they overlimit some things and under limit others and pretend their hands are tied about both.
