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.
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2025
320 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
71885 readers
4489 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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 don’t condone vigilante murder
What do you do when the legal system accumulates errors in its operation further and further? There's no way, even theoretically, to fix that without breaking rules of that level.
The only difference between a vigilante and a murderer is state of mind. Luigi got it right. No dead bystanders. No redeeming qualities of his target, who is probably responsible for a far greater number of deaths. He put work into planning this and it shows, but he got really lucky, too.
If we had a bunch running around, we'd all be less safe. And a hell of a lot of them would probably target villains we don't all agree deserve it. So I don't condone it. But in this one case, I think it worked out.
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.
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.
It would be swept under the rug, maybe get prosecuted and fined for q token amount.
There are three ways just off the top of my head that this improves the situation.
It puts fear into the people murdering the masses through policy, other CEOs might think twice now.
It makes people think and talk about this, and put the topic of healthcare CEOs being murderers into the public discourse.
It showcases that public support, actually bipartisan public support exists for positive change, it's just not on the ballot. Some smart politician might figure out how to ride that wave into office.
other CEOs might think twice now.
Will they though? Mangione is behind bars, the media has largely sided with the CEO, and other insurance CEOs are probably getting police protection. The net result is probably more spending on personal protection, video security, etc.
None of this is surprising, and AFAICT, nothing has changed. And I don't expect anything to change. He'd do far more good working for an insurance company and whistleblowing, hacking in from outside and exposing them, or any other number of things.
Are those benefits you mentioned worth throwing your life away for? I personally don't think so, at least not while alternatives exist.
It made another insurance company walk back terms that were going to set a limit on the amount of time surgeries could take or they wouldn't cover them. The company announced it the morning after and walked it back that afternoon.
I'm not sure it justifies things, or the cost this change came at, but it is prettt direct evidence of an insurance company thinking twice
load more comments
(2 replies)
Will they though? Mangione is behind bars, the media has largely sided with the CEO, and other insurance CEOs are probably getting police protection.
People sided with Luigi, and it showed that health insurance CEOs can be shot and killed relatively easily, and that it works in sending a message.
The police protection won't save anyone, but it will remind both them and the masses that this is something that can happen.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It was step one, not intended to be the entire end-goal. The goal is to make it obvious that profits aren't the way healthcare should be done, as it is directly at odds with the purpose. Almost every other country in the world has removed profit from healthcare, or never added it in the first place. Even if you want to keep the rest of capitalism, it doesn't go here.
He definitely got the conversation started. He got alot of people to say out loud that "they kind of agree with him". And that is how change happens, when alot of people realise they were already thinking the same thing but didn't want to be the first one to say it. He opened the flood gates.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Problem is it wasn't illegal. So the law is no use here. So exposing the activities they are engaged in right in public is no use. It's like whistleblowing on Trump colliding with Russia. He did it right in front of everybody and got away with it.
Also, ultimately profits don't have to always increase. In fact, it's an impossibility over the long term without diversifying, and even then growth will slow. There's not a damn thing wrong with a business that consistently, reliably turns 1B into 1.1B (or whatever).
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? I mean a life lived in misery isn't worth much. At the end of the day, only he can answer whether it was worth the cost, but the rest of us have the opportunity to build on the message he sent. Will we capitalize (lol) on that opportunity? Probably not, but Mangione was undoubtedly a spark. Eventually a spark will catch, but of course it's never certain who will get burned.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
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.
Which is ironic considering the gun loving right are the bootlickers who ate now crying "murder bad, mmmkay"
Idk that anyone working class is. Even the MAGA family members are of the opinion that Luigi is cool.
My closest genetic link, fiscal conservative of yore + 2A, is: I don’t care what they say, I only feel bad for his kids. And then I here about the math, and our mutual love of Star Trek where they say: “the needs of the many..”
Unifying us, through this or any other point, instead of having us rolling around in the mud arguing trans is not what corporate america wants.
They even manage to divide working class on unions and such. But not this.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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
Any moderator who bans violent speech should be treated by the users as corrupt, and their community should be avoided.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
It’s the internet so I’m assuming a month from now people will stop caring and only some slight bump in awareness as trial news comes out.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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)
load more comments
(1 replies)
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...
But isn't it odd to presume he's not the shooter while also semi-worshipping him? Like if he's not the shooter then he's just some dude who was at McDonald's at the wrong time.
That is indeed odd yeah, but you can still worship the idea of guillotines without being sure who let the blade fall.
It's pretty clear that he did the act. However he's still entitled to the presumption of innocence as a legal fact. The state must win its case. Whether he did it and whether the state can prove he's guilty are two separate issues. See: OJ Simpson
load more comments
(1 replies)
Well there's basically two possible states. Either Luigi didn't do it in which case the one who actually did is the hero and Luigi is just a proxy for this unknown individual, or he did do it in which case Luigi is the hero. Either way doesn't really change the sentiment as at the end of the day someone who was actively making the lives of millions of Americans worse and directly contributing to many thousands of preventable deaths was killed. Who actually pulled the trigger is kind of immaterial.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
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.
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.
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:
view more: next ›