First it was Search (mostly Google), then Social (mostly Facebook) now AI turning the global internet into their own unregulated playground due to pay to play on US soil.
All of which together will make algorithmic bias, data harvesting, and hyper-realistic misinformation flourish.
I really wonder when US citizens had enough. Third time is the proverbial charm?
Probably a sign that it is past time to tightly regulate all AI-aligned companies and their products to set up guard rails to prevent this level of corruption. I am a person who lives in a state where it is totally legal for lobbyists to walk the floor of the state legislature handing out envelopes of cash to any representative who will line up behind their proposed legislation. Bribery buys state laws here and it buys pretty much anything else that those with deep pockets desire.
One day people in this state will wake up and burn it all down by electing representatives who serve the people, not the corporate entities that desire a low drag place to do business. There are active anti-AI and data center groups now in the state. Once they get enough traction this bullshit will end.
Anyone at any of these AI companies that attempts to influence elections should be held accountable and should suffer the harshest consequences including confiscation of all personal assets. Multi-generational enforced poverty should be their reward.
Hahaha... regulation lol. That aint happening in the US. If you do see regulation it will be so crippled as to be meaningless but it'll give something politicians can talk about as "for the people". All regulations are written by industry insiders.
Regulation is not possible with today's politics. But it can become possible as soon as January 2027 politics, which is largely determined by the 2026 November election.
For decades people have proclaimed that we can fix things in the next election...but that has never happened in all of my existence and do not expected to happen in my life time. It's pure carrot chasing
Yeah, this is amazing and should be submitted here on its own if it hasn't already.
I just found that one of my reps got an absurd amount of money from some shadowy group called "Think Big". Which is in turn part of a larger org called "Leading the Future" [0], which is:
> A coordinated network of AI-industry super PACs working to head off stricter AI regulation, chiefly by pushing a single federal framework that would override stronger state-level rules on issues like consumer protection and liability. Leading the Future is the lead committee, channeling money to the Democratic-facing Think Big and the Republican-facing American Mission. All draw on the same core backers — chiefly Andreessen Horowitz, and OpenAI president Greg Brockman and his wife.
This will actually dovetail perfectly with candidates using AI to write up their policy stances and work it into dynamic, emotionally appealing stump speeches.
The bias will come from your prompt. Asking AI - If voting for Reform UK is a good/bad idea? - shows AI where you at and what sycophantic it needs to give. AI is certainly not biased :)
Never? Even the whole "corporations are people too" meme where this sentiment presumably originated from is often misunderstood. It doesn't mean corporations have the same rights as people, it just means they can conduct transactions and can sue/be used. It doesn't mean they can vote.
I thought that the "corporations are people" meme was the actual rationale for why corpos "should" be allowed to spend money on elections: spending money for political purposes is free speech, and people have the right to free speech, and corpos are people, so corpos have the right to spend money for political purposes.
>spending money for political purposes is free speech, and people have the right to free speech, and corpos are people, so corpos have the right to spend money for political purposes.
From wikipedia:
>The majority also held that the First Amendment's free press clause protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the speaker's identity. Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have free speech rights under the First Amendment.
In other words, corporations have the right to spend money for political purposes not because of corporate personhood or "corporations are people too", it's because first amendment protections apply to associations of people. This covers corporations, but also includes other groups like trade unions.
The flaw in this reasoning is that corporations are not merely associations of people; they are a special kind of association of people, which can be regulated specially. Hence, I think, why some have stripped away this motivated language and reduced it to the more honest and obviously absurd "corporations are people too."
Corporations can vote now. If they own land. In some states.
Which is fine, they only get one vote.
But they can also divide a piece of land into small plots, make a bunch of shell companies, each one owning a small piece of land, and vote using that.
"Corporate Personhood" allows the corporate entity to be a responsibility sink for the owners. They alternative is that people can sue the owners/officers directly for the "actions" of the corporation.
"We can direct the corporation we own to dump raw sewage into rivers but you can't hold us accountable personally for that decision" is an absolutely messed way to run things
Sure but you need to be able to get to “someone” when say the owner skips town or dies or… plus this firewall makes it so people will be more willing to build businesses.
Requiring one function does not require the other though.
"Corporate personhood" is a legal concept where how person-like a corporation is can be defined in whichever way is convenient to how we want the law to operate.
If businesspeople want to get involved in politics, they should have the courage to run for office like anybody else. Lurking on the sidelines and waiving money around is really lame and laughable.
There are people who couldn't care less about political power, but want certain laws passed, and have lots of money. And then there those who couldn't care less about much of anything besides gaining political power and see money and quid quo pro as means to achieve that.
I mean many of these companies are doing tens of billions in revenue each, meanwhile their home state is becoming increasingly hostile to their presence. That said this article shares no numbers so I have no idea what the scope or scale of their impact is.
First it was Search (mostly Google), then Social (mostly Facebook) now AI turning the global internet into their own unregulated playground due to pay to play on US soil.
All of which together will make algorithmic bias, data harvesting, and hyper-realistic misinformation flourish.
I really wonder when US citizens had enough. Third time is the proverbial charm?
We aren't even getting a kiss.
Probably a sign that it is past time to tightly regulate all AI-aligned companies and their products to set up guard rails to prevent this level of corruption. I am a person who lives in a state where it is totally legal for lobbyists to walk the floor of the state legislature handing out envelopes of cash to any representative who will line up behind their proposed legislation. Bribery buys state laws here and it buys pretty much anything else that those with deep pockets desire.
One day people in this state will wake up and burn it all down by electing representatives who serve the people, not the corporate entities that desire a low drag place to do business. There are active anti-AI and data center groups now in the state. Once they get enough traction this bullshit will end.
Anyone at any of these AI companies that attempts to influence elections should be held accountable and should suffer the harshest consequences including confiscation of all personal assets. Multi-generational enforced poverty should be their reward.
Just my two cents.
Hahaha... regulation lol. That aint happening in the US. If you do see regulation it will be so crippled as to be meaningless but it'll give something politicians can talk about as "for the people". All regulations are written by industry insiders.
Regulation is not possible with today's politics. But it can become possible as soon as January 2027 politics, which is largely determined by the 2026 November election.
Nothing of substance will change in 2026. That goose is cooked already after all the gerry mandering
Gerrymandering only affects House and the House is overwhelmingly looking like a Democrat victory.
Senate is statewide so it's innately immune to Gerrymandering. Like.... Do you even know what that word means?
Democrats aren't winning the Senate. They are not lock ins for the House either.
I dont know what is so difficult about this for you.
For decades people have proclaimed that we can fix things in the next election...but that has never happened in all of my existence and do not expected to happen in my life time. It's pure carrot chasing
Tech Influence Watch site: https://influence.citationneeded.news/ (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48632474)
(Blog post: https://www.citationneeded.news/tech-influence-watch/)
Yeah, this is amazing and should be submitted here on its own if it hasn't already.
I just found that one of my reps got an absurd amount of money from some shadowy group called "Think Big". Which is in turn part of a larger org called "Leading the Future" [0], which is:
> A coordinated network of AI-industry super PACs working to head off stricter AI regulation, chiefly by pushing a single federal framework that would override stronger state-level rules on issues like consumer protection and liability. Leading the Future is the lead committee, channeling money to the Democratic-facing Think Big and the Republican-facing American Mission. All draw on the same core backers — chiefly Andreessen Horowitz, and OpenAI president Greg Brockman and his wife.
[0]: https://influence.citationneeded.news/2026/networks/leading-...
Very nice "Contributions by entity" visualization, thanks
So they want a bailout when the inevitable happens.
Millions? Makes me think of https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in...
Comparing almonds to elections might be my new favorite way of saying "comparing apples to oranges".
This is interesting. I wonder how this might affect laws and regulations.
If it's for sale, someone will buy
So about the same amount as the spend on a single row in a datacenter?
"Voting with your Wallet" - the American way.
The rich love the concept of voting with your wallet, because by definition they get shitloads more votes than you.
Ballot harvesting should be made illegal.
how long before “AI agents have voting rights too” becomes real
No need for that. People will ask their favorite AI who to vote for anyway.
I fully expect to see Grok proactively offer to help you with your ballot
This will actually dovetail perfectly with candidates using AI to write up their policy stances and work it into dynamic, emotionally appealing stump speeches.
I got mine to build me an interactive quiz for the UK elections, unsure if that's better or worse... It felt not so biased but who knows right?
The bias will come from your prompt. Asking AI - If voting for Reform UK is a good/bad idea? - shows AI where you at and what sycophantic it needs to give. AI is certainly not biased :)
Making it hard for politically inconvenient humans to vote is more straightforward than granting AI agents the right to vote.
Never? Even the whole "corporations are people too" meme where this sentiment presumably originated from is often misunderstood. It doesn't mean corporations have the same rights as people, it just means they can conduct transactions and can sue/be used. It doesn't mean they can vote.
I thought that the "corporations are people" meme was the actual rationale for why corpos "should" be allowed to spend money on elections: spending money for political purposes is free speech, and people have the right to free speech, and corpos are people, so corpos have the right to spend money for political purposes.
>spending money for political purposes is free speech, and people have the right to free speech, and corpos are people, so corpos have the right to spend money for political purposes.
From wikipedia:
>The majority also held that the First Amendment's free press clause protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the speaker's identity. Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have free speech rights under the First Amendment.
In other words, corporations have the right to spend money for political purposes not because of corporate personhood or "corporations are people too", it's because first amendment protections apply to associations of people. This covers corporations, but also includes other groups like trade unions.
The flaw in this reasoning is that corporations are not merely associations of people; they are a special kind of association of people, which can be regulated specially. Hence, I think, why some have stripped away this motivated language and reduced it to the more honest and obviously absurd "corporations are people too."
That was the Citizens United reasoning yes and it was wholly absurd unless you really wanted to empower the executive class.
Corporations can vote now. If they own land. In some states.
Which is fine, they only get one vote.
But they can also divide a piece of land into small plots, make a bunch of shell companies, each one owning a small piece of land, and vote using that.
It also allows them to be sued. I suppose we could have other mechanisms to sue companies but this is what we’ve come up with.
"Corporate Personhood" allows the corporate entity to be a responsibility sink for the owners. They alternative is that people can sue the owners/officers directly for the "actions" of the corporation.
Which is obviously messed.
"We can direct the corporation we own to dump raw sewage into rivers but you can't hold us accountable personally for that decision" is an absolutely messed way to run things
Sure but you need to be able to get to “someone” when say the owner skips town or dies or… plus this firewall makes it so people will be more willing to build businesses.
> Sure but you need to be able to get to “someone” when say the owner skips town or dies or…
And now you get to "nobody at all" when effectively nothing happens to the leaders the instant the need to bear accountability
> plus this firewall makes it so people will be more willing to build businesses.
Doubt.
Requiring one function does not require the other though.
"Corporate personhood" is a legal concept where how person-like a corporation is can be defined in whichever way is convenient to how we want the law to operate.
It does in one town in Delaware, at least: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/delaware-court-upho...
The thing that stuck with me is the awful reasoning by the judge: "Judge rules Fenwick Island's corporate voting does not dilute human votes"
How could corporations voting not dilute the human votes by the very nature and reason of voting in the first place?
"AI right are human rights!"
If businesspeople want to get involved in politics, they should have the courage to run for office like anybody else. Lurking on the sidelines and waiving money around is really lame and laughable.
If your business is large enough, if you don't donate to politicians, they will target your business.
The government is massive and inserts itself into business operations all the time. The inevitable results happen.
No, this is a naive fantasy.
There are people who couldn't care less about political power, but want certain laws passed, and have lots of money. And then there those who couldn't care less about much of anything besides gaining political power and see money and quid quo pro as means to achieve that.
Then those people are on the sidelines like every other citizen. Play the game or be a spectator. Nobody gets to have it both ways.
You have very interesting ideas on how the world should be run. A pity that others ignore them and just do whatever suits them better.
What major industry in the US hasn’t been doing that for decades?
At this point it’s a perfectly common cost of doing business there. Pay money to get favourable laws passed. But it’s not bribery. No no no.
I mean many of these companies are doing tens of billions in revenue each, meanwhile their home state is becoming increasingly hostile to their presence. That said this article shares no numbers so I have no idea what the scope or scale of their impact is.