The group chats that changed America
semafor.com
semafor.com
Group chats rule the world - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40660867 - June 2024 (184 comments)
I could imagine if the model was very good and well done, to even generate names for the chats, in a UI where clicking into it could show a graph of involvement, ideas likely shared, and approximate timelines. Perhaps clicking into the ideas could lead to details on the history / corruption of the idea, etc.
> Rufo had been there all along: “I looked at these chats as a good investment of my time to radicalize tech elites who I thought were the most likely and high-impact new coalition partners for the right.”
It genuinely baffles and disturbs me that these corpos seem to think of themselves as the intellectual elite. History will remember them as little more than greedy idiots falling over each other to manifest a new age of violent and repressive authoritarianism.
As tech elites lost their untouchable image of being pure prodigies and visionaries, it became clearer — especially after scandals like Cambridge Analytica — that many of them operate like ordinary, ruthless capitalists. Public trust declined as more people moved online and more abuses came to light. Instead of fully acknowledging this shift, many of these elites seem to interpret the criticism — much of which comes from media and universities, which do lean left — as purely ideological attacks. From my perspective, it’s a textbook case of cognitive dissonance: their self-image as bold innovators clashes with how they are increasingly seen from the outside, and the natural human reaction is to blame the critics rather than adjust the self-image.
For a while these people felt like they had to pretend to be decent, pro-social humans so they could keep making money: that seems great. More people should pretend not to be racist assholes.
I wonder how much of this is that they got so rich "you can't make more money" stopped being a meaningful threat.
For me the cringiest part of all is sudden strong urge to appear strong and masculine. It is always full package.
Note that pg himself took a fairly surpising reactionary turn in right about the 2020/2021 timeframe this article describes. A guy who'd always been a left-center pragmatist suddenly was yelling in public tweets about the Campus Left's Desire for Cancellation and whatnot.
Those of us closer to the trenches never really did get the ire here: I mean, yeah, kids are intemperate jerks, but they've always been intemperate jerks. And the tech community... has always celebrated the idea behind the intemperate jerk and an engine for change and disruption. Let the ideas fight it out and pick winners and all, right? Suddenly these billionaires were all snowflakes looking to a political realignment to save them?
This article goes a long way to explaining why.
- https://www.leefang.com/p/inside-the-pro-israel-information - https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/05/16/business-le...
Also, after articles like these, will calls for "viewpoint diversity" finally apply to conservatives who chase out even the moderates from their spheres? After years of the left being accused of suppressing opposing views, I haven't seen quite the same backlash against conservatives building up ideologically homogenous spaces like the group chats in the article.
The clear contention in the linked article is that it's neither. It's just plain old group think fed by an echo chamber. You take a genuine-but-isolated affront or conflict[1], tie it to one or two other less important side issues[2], and then just line everyone up on the "good" or "bad" side of a line. Before you know it our community is cheering the return of a regime that literally tried to stage a coup and making tortuous excuses for why we need to be deporting four year old citizens with cancer.
It's 4chan. It's just 4chan all over again.
[1] Ex: the anti-elite current within the lefty political sphere that has never really loved the idea of making common cause with SV billionaires.
[2] Middle aged dudes, demographically, tend to be a little squicked out by trans rights and pronouns and LGBTQ+ issues, think paper straws are dumb as fuck, and really hated seeing stuff burned down in protets.
The oligarchs will not lose their freedom or power and they won't fight (or even inconvenience themselves) to preserve yours. Next time you're reading a blog or a biography of a tech billionaire, remember that they got their wealth from wage theft and they will keep their power by destroying yours.
The only law tech companies -- and the oligarchs that own and control them -- have to obey is allegiance to Trump. No other law will be enforced.
Is it that surprising? As a longtime member, this seems perfectly consistent with the general bent of the website. Collectively, HN has long been extremely comfortable with authoritarianism and far right ideologies, as long as those opinions are expressed in a framing that conveys intellectualism and "civility". Those same expectations are weaponized to drive out dissenting voices, which creates a positive[0] feedback loop.
Honestly, if anything, I'm surprised that this comment thread is (reasonably) lucid, because that's not how a lot of other comment threads recently on similar issues have gone.
[0] In the literal (non-normative) sense: a positive feedback loop is one which amplifies the effects, whether or not the end effects are "good" or "bad".
HN also does the same for far left authoritarian ideologies, those are also here and upvoted. I don't see how this pushes out anyone.
Appropriately, this reply (which is exactly what I was expecting) is itself an example of the effect I'm describing: the false presumption that two point which can be distinguished are inherently equivalent and comparable.
> I don't see how this pushes out anyone.
Given your other extensive other comments about these topics, I can understand why you don't think this dynamic would push anyone out, and I also don't think we're going to see eye to eye on any of this.
I think you Americans are crazy both on the left and the right, I am criticizing the left more since that is more represented here, there is no need to criticizing the right since so many do it already.
The fundamental difference is that conservative viewpoints support the majority (or plurality), whereas the liberal viewpoints support the minority view. Backlash against the majority view is much harder to come by. And being in the majority and supporting minority perspectives is more uncomfortable, and frankly much easier to opt-out of if there is sufficient discomfort.
Be specific and put up numbers.
There is a wide, wide swath of issues where the "liberal" position is the majoritarian one.
There are "liberal" positions that are popular, but generally the current big conservative pushes are against minority populations. E.g., DEI, trans, immigrants (from certain countries), etc...
There are some things where it's a zero-sum game, such as affirmative action. And those do in fact tend to be less popular even among liberals (as evidenced by referendums on those topics in blue states). But that's a relatively small part of the overall liberal platform.
Post facto, it seems given the monster that these people have actually unleashed and empowered, the preemptive negative reactions to what they had been saying in public were actually pretty fucking justified. And I say this with the perspective of someone who generally believes in open debate, hates cancel culture, and who was reading Yarvin as he was writing under the Moldbug nym and found much of his analysis compelling. But it always struck me that Yarvin came to the exact wrong conclusion wanting to run thermodynamics backwards. Even Urbit, I had thought there was something novel and universal there, until I realized it was actually just describing another Java 1.0 dressed up in fancy equations and four-letter words. Like sure, if you could travel back in time and make all computing equipment run Urbit, Java, or Rust that sure would make a lot of things easy. Except in the real world, other languages already exist and have anchoring utility that is likely to keep them existing.
I keep pondering a steelmanning of this idea of the Elite Jewish Conspiracy, pushing this radical acceptance of non-traditional lifestyles onto our society through various distributed leadership positions. I think that needed to get more mainstream treatment - stepping back and looking at it impartially, does this not seem an awful lot like what one would expect as counterbalance to the cultural memory of the Shoah? An attempt to prevent such an utter industrial-scale waste of human life and potential in the name of uniformity from ever happening again? And maybe the right answer is that we needed to get past its cloying overreactions, incorporate it into our baseline society, and move forward - instead of giving in to the simpleheaded authoritarian powermongers promising to simplify the world for us if only we hand them the power with a mandate to destroy.
---
> getting your family out of the concentration camp
Could you please not take HN threads straight into flamewar hell like this? We're trying for something quite different here, and it's way too aggressive to kick off a thread with rhetoric like that.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
People being illegally sent to CECOT is a major nationwide story right now that is real and pertinent.
It seems to me directly in line with the nature of the article as written, the tech context we currently live in, and i don’t think it’s against HN guidelines to speak uncomfortably truths. In fact it seems core to what we’re trying to do here.
Thanks for all you do here, not trying to turn this place into Twitter, but I also think it’s important that we not fall into the trap of not being willing to confront the outrageous truths of what’s happening in our community because the rational response is outrageous.
Reading it the next morning, though, I think I misread what mindslight meant by "getting your family out of the concentration camp". Now that I'm reading it differently, I can see how my reply came across as too heavy-handed. Sorry all!
You're right that not every comment which should be moderated actually gets moderated, but this is not because we're secretly on one side or the other. It's because we don't see most of what gets posted here. There's far too much of it to read, and we can't moderate what we don't see. If you see a post like that going unmoderated, the most likely explanation is that we just didn't see it (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...).
To passionate users, it always feels like the mods are against them and secretly in cahoots with the other side, but this is an illusion (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). If it helps at all, the other side has exactly the same complaint, just with the political bit flipped. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26368875 for a plethora of quotes; they're years old now, but the phenomenon is perennial. Here are a few more recent cases:
HN is mainly left leaning https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43559670 (April 2025)
HN has turned into a far-left hive-mind https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43214821 (March 2025)
this website is effectively a leftist filter bubble and you do nothing to address it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43146049 (Feb 2025)
a hard liberal-progressive tilt https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43136198 (Feb 2025)
a prog-left echo chamber https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43133747 (Feb 2025)
an echo-chamber of left-wing lunatics https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42576474 (Jan 2025)
> We got complaints about your use of the word "rabid" and I think they have a point. That crosses into name-calling in the sense that the HN guidelines ask you not to do.
> If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
This is in response to someone who is violating the rules on extremist/flame bait/trolling with a right wing bent. It appears that you were pointed out this comment based on the inclusion of the word “rabid”.
Now instead of coming in as a mod enforcing impartial rules, you’ve added words that give the tone that you are only admonishing this person because they got snitched on.
If I believed you were impartial then even if you were pointed out this instance of rule breaking by an impartial observer, I would still expect you to treat it in a neutral manner.
I understand after reading your links that I am probably falling to some sort of bias when I called you out on this particular, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone these days
And I agree that my original comment was treading the line in a few places! I think some of that is necessary these days, as I said in a follow up. Honestly I'm still reeling a bit from dang's response of effectively 'oh, you were talking about the current concentration camp? carry on then'. Because yes - I wish that term were still unnecessarily inflammatory.
(also FWIW the other "right wing" comment you're talking about is actually coming from a "left" perspective. I don't think it's an appropriate response to this topic, and I'm personally past that kind of self-flagellation because the time to focus on fighting the "rabid progressivism" is when it has power. But we're all processing this in our own ways)
This is asinine Dang. Making references to REALITY as it exists right now is not "flamewar".
The HN guidelines have never required people to ignore reality.
Discussing concentration camps in the context of the US has never been "flamewar" territory. This is like when Google bans your account for showing historical footage of atrocities. Whitewashing reality like this is gross.
Your post would make more sense if I hadn't added the "Edit" bit to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43817409 (nor posted https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43824481 or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43823390). But I did that more than 24 hours before you posted this.
I'm pretty sure I've been chided before for making a drive by comment on this site, but that seems to have been the case here, in your official role.
>On the other hand, other people would probably have misread it in the same way, so the point still applies, just not as much, and probably not enough to justify my mod response.
>At first I read it as a gratuitous Holocaust reference (i.e. some sort of throwaway flamebait)
Part of my response is that I cannot fathom even a little bit the way you mistakenly read the comment in such a way, unless you just barely even see the comments you are moderating. Was this driven by a "concentration camp" auto-moderator or something?
It's frustrating how often we are told to trust that you moderate fairly, that any concerns we have are just "sampling bias" or confirmation bias, that we can't really discuss or doubt the rules, that definitely no vote manipulation happens, but we also cannot expect you to read the sentence containing the supposed reference?
IDK, man, I was just surprised.
I thought the rest of my comment was insightful as well, despite having to trade in some inflammatory terms. We're apparently at a time of pulling on these threads that had remained unpulled. The only way forward is to hash these uncomfortable ideas out in the open. Because as the article describes, they're certainly getting pulled on in less public forums where other uncomfortable truths have an easier time remaining unvisited.
On the other hand, other people would probably have misread it in the same way, so the point still applies, just not as much, and probably not enough to justify my mod response.
This may be a little embarrassing, but I don't read people's comments very closely. There isn't time, and it isn't necessary. It does mean I sometimes guess things wrong, though, (moderation is guesswork*) and that sucks.
* https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
On the original topic, because I will acknowledge that my comment did have several bits of dry tinder in it - the sin of my lead in sentence was that it was irreverant. It would have been inappropriate if it were responding to another comment. But I think there has to be more leeway in initial comments so that there is a chance of moving past the politicized pit of arguing about whether something even exists, and towards a less-widely-shared but larger understanding such that we might actually do something about it.
I think the fundamental problem here is that we as a country now have something that can be straightforwardly referred to as a concentration camp. There are probably other terms that are more technically accurate, but not so much as to forgo the cultural touchstone of what we're actually really close to.
I'd say you are in a similar position to maybe 2016ish or so (my own mental timeline is a bit hazy), when the tide had just started to turn against the prevailing "woke [0] brigade", and insightful but not-completely-defensively-worded comments would get jumped on by a bunch of reasonably-phrased but inflammatorily-framed comments, making it seem like the original comment was starting the flamewar.
[0] I personally hate this term like others hate "concentration camp", but it's awfully hard to argue against its current utility, regardless of how far from its original meaning it is.
At first I read it as a gratuitous Holocaust reference (i.e. some sort of throwaway flamebait). Later I realized you were probably referring to ongoing current events. One can agree or disagree but that at least wasn't gratuitous.
But really, this sort of "you're ok with X?" gotcha argument is an internet trope of the kind we don't want here.
I vastly preferred the world in which we could leave the "Elite Jewish Conspiracy" thread unpulled, and write off the rare person mentioning those words as some crackpot. But the reactionaries have been pulling hard on these types of threads, and using the bland generic negative responses to drive even more engagement - "see THEY don't even let you talk about it!". So like maybe we - the "left" if you prefer that narrower label, but really "actually-conservatives" (as in we actually respect the institutions and values of our society, rather than merely pretending to) - need to start tackling these topics head on?
Putting my original point a different way - maybe we need to stop taking the mild widespread pushing of societal tolerance/progressivism/etc from our institutions for granted, and acknowledge it as a hard-won asset created from the horrors of World War II? Like the rightist machine of unquestioned hierarchical execution has and likely will always exist in our society, so if there's some ever present cloying refrain of "don't embrace the rightists" expressed throughout our institutions and media is that really surprising? The alternative is to give the rightist forces of top-down control a blank check, which they will eagerly embrace to carry out individual-prerogative sadism as we're currently seeing.
And for what? For clicks? To tell on someone? To smear someone? What "good" was accomplished from this leak and this article? Some advertiser dollars were made -- probably a trivial amount compared to the value of honest debate among the most powerful in tech.
There's pretty wide intolerance for leaking everyday discussion by everyday people, but some people are in a position where their actions can very greatly impact others and some of their relationships and discussions have bearing on that. You can't be surprised if the potentially-impacted seek to seize transparency even where it's not handed to them.
The best private chats are those with a few vetted members who understand the consequences of a leak. However, this doesn't fully protect the chat because the leaker, especially if he or she is a skilled liar, could remain anonymous indefinitely.
A common thread among leaks is that people post salacious content under their real names (or pseudonyms that are easily traced) under the guise they are sharing in a "safe space." Nothing is safe from a serial screenshotter.
To stop them from doing what they are trying to do. The goals they are working towards are malign & repugnant and this makes them my adversaries. I'm not interested in a fair fight with a neosegregationist billionaires' coup. They certainly aren't going to give me a sporting chance.
This article contains genuine reporting about the right-wing influencers working to shift the opinions of the richest people in the USA. That seems like a large amount of good to me.
It’s the only facsimile of holding powerful people accountable we have left.
People do not like being lied to, and they especially do not like someone lying to them while concretely making their life worse.
> compared to the value of honest debate among the most powerful in tech
Yet again this seems to be using "honest" as code for "racism".
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
(I'm a bit squeamish about the word decorum but that's me being nitpicky)
Eventually the Democrats are going to recognize that hardline "if you're not with us, you're against us" progressives are costing more votes than they're worth and show them the door.
You can think that students are foolish for doing this. You can choose to stop donating because of a response by an institution. But to use this to claim that the left has "gone rabid" is ridiculous given the actual data.
The students' behavior is not what drove voters towards the reactionary right. Breathless media coverage that blew this behavior completely out of proportion is responsible for this.
(I was sloppy, and didn't integrate the anecdote well as I wrote the comment, so I think the anecdote confused my message more than helped.)
And, I dunno, I feel like the fact that my friends who aren't public figures but do research on climate change get weekly death threats just seems more important than the fact that people yell at JK Rowling online for being transphobic.
I still think there's a large problem with a dominant mode of interaction we're seeing by much of the left-leaning (it's pervasive online, and transparent pandering and manipulation in left-appealing news shows), and that it's hurting more than it's helping.
1. This largely ends here (there are exceptions, and it is definitely no fun to be yelled at online)
2. The right has consistently acted in all of the same ways (plus more bomb threats) to no similar criticism
3. The political strategy of the left cannot require "literally everybody online is on their best behavior all of the time."
And no, law enforcement is absolutely uninterested in dealing with death threats sent by people who think that doing research on climate change is evil. The idea that the FBI would help out is odd to me.
Maybe one of the problems is that, online, a flood of dozens of angry tweets stomping on someone, by (for the sake of argument) a small minority of people who are having a bad day... has the effect that people are routinely (almost systematically) stomped, because there's always some dozens of people having a bad day? And they all sound the same, so maybe it's a rotating vocal minority that looks like a bigger problem than it is?
Regarding death threats...
I think we have different expectations about the possibility of gov't help (I'm still a bit Pollyanna on this). Local police might or might not have the resources to take the report and coordinate with federal resources, but it's likely inter-state, so the victim could go direct to the FBI.
I'm sure I've read news stories of the senders of death threats being tracked down by law enforcement.
And, I suppose the sender just might be linked to a domestic group/network (or foreign agitators) that the FBI is already tracking.
If the researchers are under a university or NGO, are they getting support from their organization, or do they need to confront the org's administration into interfacing better with law enforcement regarding death threats?
(I'm speaking of baseline situation in recent years; I have no idea what the situation at the FBI is this week, given the various gov't disruption going on, and the keyword "climate" being targeted by some. Even if the situation is complicated at the moment, maybe lead the reporting of a crime and request for assistance with the death threat part, and then the details relevant to the investigation/analysis include that the victim is a climate researcher?)
If all else fails, an org's lawyer (and investigator they hire) might also identify doxing and egging activity (especially online) that's traceable to death threats, and be able to do more with law enforcement and/or civil courts.
But this effect isn't politically aligned with the left. So it becomes frustrating when this is used exclusively to criticize the left and to excuse the right.
I'm curious if you've ever interacted with law enforcement organizations for something like this. Remember, my friend gets regular death threats. Even if somehow magically the FBI acted on the first one, will they act on the 10th?
And no, public universities do not hire private investigators via their legal office to track down death threats their faculty receive.
If it's a public university, and their personnel are getting death threats regarding university work, the university had better make an effort to help -- if not for decency, then for liability. Including working with law enforcement.
One easy thing the university can do themselves (under the direction of a lawyer or administrator) is to ask IT for the Web server logs (or analytics) for accesses to the person's pages. They don't have to subpoena ISPs to see that, right before the most recent threat, there was a burst of referrers from `https://webforum.example/bobs-basement-militia?post=1232767`.
The FBI won't care. The local cops won't care. The university won't pull logs for network traffic, nor would the existence of this information be meaningful to anybody to take any action.
Nobody has any obligation to provide you a platform. That is literally their first amendment right. If you want to use the government against "cancel culture", you are attempting to suppress people's first amendment rights of association.
The founding fathers had to pay people to print their pamphlets. That option has always been available and was the very context that the first amendment was built around.
The founding fathers never expected anyone else to carry their ideas. They expected ideas to be carried by their merit.
The data above is since 1998. So in the last 27 years we've seen an average of 28 successful deplatforming attempts annually. The website cites 172 attempts (not necessarily successful) in 2024.
There are thousands of colleges in the US. Surely hundreds of thousands of invited talks annually. I just cannot imagine thinking that this is a substantial social problem that should justify changing one's voting behavior.
Speech is not created equal. What some students say in some college campus has very little power compared to the speech of one of the richest people __in history__.
When someone famous and rich says something fucked up, the reaction to that isn’t deplatforming but rather a basic attempt at defense.
As for your point, I had some of the same thoughts about the overall article as you did. But I quoted a small piece of it, to narrow in on one point I wanted to make, which might be less obvious to people who think like us about the topic.
Of course some wealthy and powerful have been undermining democracy; but what if that quote was honest: is it a valid criticism, and can we improve the situation?
As long as we're stuck with billionaires, wouldn't it be great if more of them decided it was better to promote an informed and functioning democracy?
> people like you always
This crosses into personal attack and you can't do that here. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and edit out such swipes in the future, as the rules ask, we'd appreciate it.
Edit: this has unfortunately increasingly been a problem with your account lately:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43261348 (March 2025)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43152094 (Feb 2025)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43147710 (Feb 2025)
You've made many fine contributions to HN in the past and I don't recall your account having been involved in so much ideological and political flamewar. Could you please fix this? It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
That's not the student exercising their free speech. It's the student denying the benefit of free speech to their fellow students and the rest of the university.
The university apparently hadn't yet educated the student on the basics of university, and there was not yet any sign that the university was going to. Reporting followed up with the student, when they promoted their personal brand, and solicited funding to continue their fight.
(You might be happy to know that, instead of my modest donation going to the university with the student who thought a first-rate university was the place to ignore the fundamentals they teach, and instead play self-promoting influencer... IIRC, that was the year the money went to a homeless trans person, who'd been through more hell than most people can imagine, and who needed a discreet laptop so that they could practice coding job skills, but without the laptop getting violently stolen from them in whatever shelter they could get into. I'm not making this up, and the contrast was striking.)
Regarding your other comments, much of the rabid left didn't seem to be acting as the savvy political operators you suggest: a whole lot of people were mindlessly flinging their poo, and playing right into the hands of some of the worst of their adversaries. Maybe it was partly a combination of crisis mode over the best of intentions (e.g., help those who need help), and anger and fatigue from same (which I certainly felt), but there also seemed to be a whole lot of not knowing any other mode of reasoning or acting. Maybe that's not their fault -- you might blame the deterioration of popular journalism, social media sites preying upon their users, and a dearth of visible role models demonstrating anything else -- but that seems to be where we are, for large slices of the vocal population. And there's been a lot of counterproductive.
They were right, because they were not determined to excuse dveryone on the right up to absurdum and because they read what right actually said.
Moderate right and center consistently and always excused far right and refused to beloeve it exists even when it was completely apparent. And consistently deployed double standards where right was excused and left acts massively exaggerated.
Do you know OP personally? Do you really think it's reasonable to assume that everyone in the universe (except for you, perhaps) is a hypocrite like this?
There's plenty of people that feel the administrative force of the university shouldn't be used to suppress either side. Let the gun club invite Luigi. Let the trans club invite the Stonewall rioters.
You're welcome to say you dislike the speaker. You don't have to attend. But you shouldn't have the authority to stop other people from inviting them to speak, or to stop other people from listening.
Left is responsible for ehat they so and never ever excused with "right made them do it". Not even when they were 100% right in the hindsight.
Right is not responsible for what they do. They are victims of circumstances even when they caused the circumstances.
Nah I’m sorry disrupting other events is a cornerstone of freedom of speech.
This allowed the current administration to step in by promising something different, with no intention of delivering anything but tax relief for the wealthy and unchaining corporations from those pesky regulations that prevent higher profits.
The politicians that represent them do not care. They get their seats secured as long as they toe the billionaire line.
We have no real opposition party in the US.
When you try to force ideological conformity with censorship, you end up creating even tighter echo chambers that amplify groupthink and entrench the very ideas you are trying to combat.
The best way to defeat an idea is to publicly tolerate and dispute it.
Twitter becoming a fascist cess pit has not reduced the power of fascists. Hearing even a completely ridiculous idea (like "the moon is made of cheese") told in a joking manner leads people to think it is more plausible than they otherwise would: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect Deplatforming is effective at reducing radicalization: https://www-cs.stanford.edu/~diyiy/docs/jhaver-2021-deplatfo...
Note that the thing that drove Andreessen to the right was left-wing thinkers who thought censoring anti-racism was bad: he was already pro-racism and pro-censorship before he created the group chats.
The problem here seems to be the income inequality & the power of money to win elections that give the uber-rich their disproportionate power.
Even though Gen Z is under constant assault by Influencers, I think they are probably sharper about spotting it similar to how GenX/Millennials were to crude marketing. They are the generation that can combat this, but at the same time they are also the generation that most likely will perpetuate it.
During the Roman republic the thing that made something like a Ceasar was a standing army. If you had a standing army you had power. Some of these powerful people have standing armies on social media and thus have power over the narrative. It's a few times removed from having men with guns, but it is the same abstraction.
This was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_C... , the "Project 2025" of its time. They're the ones really responsible for the Iraq war, but they never got the Iran War they really wanted.