Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Republicans Social Networks The Almighty Buck Businesses Communications Democrats Facebook Government The Internet Politics Technology

Oculus Founder Palmer Luckey Is Secretly Funding Trump's Meme Machine (thedailybeast.com) 867

The founder of Oculus, Palmer Luckey, has backed a pro-Trump political organization called Nimble America that is dedicated to "shitposting" and spreading inflammatory memes about Hillary Clinton. In 2014, Luckey's virtual-reality company, Oculus, was acquired by Facebook for $2 billion. Forbes estimates his current net worth to be $700 million. The Daily Beast reports: "The 24-year-old told The Daily Beast that he had used the pseudonym "NimbleRichMan" on Reddit with a password given to him by the organization's founders. Nimble America says it's dedicated to providing that "shitposting is powerful and meme magic is real," according to the company's introductory statement, and has taken credit for a billboard its founders say was posted outside of Pittsburgh with a cartoonishly large image of Clinton's face alongside the words "Too Big to Jail." "We conquered Reddit and drive narrative on social media, conquered the [mainstream media], now it's time to get our most delicious memes in front of Americans whether they like it or not," a representative for the group wrote in an introductory post on Reddit. Potential donors from Donald Trump's biggest online community -- Reddit's r/The_Donald, where one of the rules is "no dissenters" -- turned on the organization this weekend, refusing to believe "NimbleRichMan" was the anonymous "near-billionaire" he claimed to be and causing a rift on one of the alt-right's most powerful organizational tools. Luckey insists he's just the group's money man -- a wealthy booster who thought the meddlesome idea was funny. But he is also listed as the vice-president of the group on its website. In another post written under Luckey's Reddit pseudonym, Luckey echoes Peter Thiel, the tech billionaire who used his wealth to secretly bankroll Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker. The Daily Beast adds: "'The American Revolution was funded by wealthy individuals," NimbleRichMan wrote on Saturday. Luckey confirmed to The Daily Beast he penned the posts under his Reddit pseudonym. 'The same has been true of many movements for freedom in history. You can't fight the American elite without serious firepower. They will outspend you and destroy you by any and all means.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Oculus Founder Palmer Luckey Is Secretly Funding Trump's Meme Machine

Comments Filter:
  • What a Waste (Score:4, Insightful)

    by aaarrrgggh ( 9205 ) on Thursday September 22, 2016 @10:33PM (#52943991)

    We complain about lobbyists... but this is so much worse

    • by guises ( 2423402 )
      It's not substantially different, lobbyists do the same thing. They don't it "shit posting" though, so maybe this is more honest.
      • Lobbyists go around the people, to have your representatives work against you.

        Bad media goes around your representatives, to have you work against yourself.

        Maybe they're the same in that they're your adversary, but they're also pretty different. It's like saying an enemy fighter plane and an enemy tank are the same. Yeah, they're both the enemy's forces, I suppose...

    • Really? Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Thursday September 22, 2016 @10:53PM (#52944091) Homepage Journal

      We complain about lobbyists... but this is so much worse

      I'm curious why you think this is.

      We've just had an article about lobbyists that prevent Tesla from selling in Michigan without going through dealerships [slashdot.org] (which are universally hated), another recent article where lobbyists caused a town to lose it's working gigibit fibre internet [slashdot.org].

      For contrast, note that the democrats put up a billboard of Trump kissing Cruz [google.com], and naked statues of Trump in several cities [huffingtonpost.com].

      Question 1: Why is this worse than what Democrats do, and

      Question 2: Why is this worse than lobbyists who actually screw us over and make our lives miserable?

      Really. I honestly want to know. Why should this be of any concern to anyone?

      • Re:Really? Why? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by AHuxley ( 892839 ) on Friday September 23, 2016 @01:04AM (#52944623) Journal
        Re Question 2: Why is this worse than lobbyists who actually screw us over and make our lives miserable?
        Lets say a wealthy person wants free speech but has no real free time in the day to engage in a long online conversation. They hire one person to be that online persona putting in say five hours a day.
        What if the message is always been drowned out by facts and reality? Hire 10 people to each be 10 or 100 accounts each with their own story and time zone, ip?
        In the end you just go big and go with what a gov enjoys:
        "Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media " (18 March 2011)
        https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]
        British army creates team of Facebook warriors (31 January 2015)
        https://www.theguardian.com/uk... [theguardian.com]
        Re 'Really. I honestly want to know."
        The "tell" is usually one person with a lot of accounts cleaning up after bad news about a nation, their faith or their side of politics, gov, mil or agency, having a few hours to get their spin over, before going full AC again.
        Posting initial news reports or early opinion hoping to sway readers, hoping nobody will actually read the links and follow up with real news.
        Virtue signalling is the big slip up most of the accounts just cannot avoid. Eg. a party political personality trait, pushing a "security clearances" past to add validity, patriotism, nationalism, jingoism, the same sob story again and again usually gets past the smart hearts and minds effort. i.e. the person befuddles their role due to their own gov work or some mil experience.
        The better way is to set up a left or right think tank and have them hire based on life experience. The jargon, slang, life stories are then indistinguishable from actual account users, the spin can be perfected over years of account use. No needing tens of fake accounts, fake ip's, no fear of linguistic analysis, just perfected astroturfing for hire. The staff are happy and on message and if suited can be rolled out on book tours, public speaking, for comedy.
        The better lobbyists are using well funded authors, comedians, public speakers rather than vast amounts of easily detectable online accounts.
      • Re:Really? Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by guises ( 2423402 ) on Friday September 23, 2016 @01:10AM (#52944641)
        Well I'm not the grandparent, and I don't agree with the grandparent, but I'll respond anyway:

        Your first question is flamebait. The non-trollish way to phrase that would be something like: "How is this qualitatively different from other campaign propaganda?" And the answer would be something along the lines of: It's true that campaign ads and other tactics can be flat-out deceitful, but there is some measure of difference between deceptive ads and astroturfing. Neither are good, both are working against us, but one exploits our trust in the honesty of our peers and in doing so sabotages our basic ability to communicate with one another.

        For your second question: I don't think it is worse. It's not better either, it's basically the same - lobbyists are doing exactly this, constantly. They deceive constituents and organize campaign contributions all in an effort to get their legislation passed. What is this doing? Deceiving constituents in an effort to get someone elected, who will then go on to pass legislation. No difference.

        Your last question though, "Why should this be of any concern to anyone?" is... what? This should be of tremendous concern to everyone. The fact that it isn't is part of the problem.
        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Normally political advertising is clearly labeled.

        • Re:Really? Why? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Cytotoxic ( 245301 ) on Friday September 23, 2016 @09:54AM (#52946681)

          I'll add that the Clinton campaign has been proudly touting its Twitter and social media strategy ahead of the debate. They are happy to tell you that they have their affiliated PACs and supporters coordinated in a campaign to influence debate moderators to "fact check" Trump during the debate, [nytimes.com] producing an advantage for Clinton.

          They also proudly tout their strategy to have an army of supporters and astroturfers alike live-tweet the debate to create the impression that Hillary is winning the debate. [go.com] They are specifically targetting the reporters and pundits who cover the event to ensure that they get the early buzz as winning the debate and have a quick declaration that "the election is over" following the debate.

          This story, with labels like "Shitposting" would appear to be cover for this strategy, designed to neuter any criticism of the Clinton strategy, which has been fairly openly discussed at least since the Matt Lauer national security forum.

          So we have moved into a new era of political ground game - where social media is used in increasingly sophisticated ways by the campaigns to influence the election. They both seem relatively hamfisted about it at this point, but that doesn't mean it isn't having an effect.

    • I can only assume by 'this' you mean the HUNDREDS of millions USD of union members uniontax being given to the Dems?
      I dont support either side, as I can watch from a long long way away, but really, the Dems complaining about anyone at this point rather than desperately trying to clean up their own back yard is laughable.

      Vote Cthulhu! but he is no longer the most evil (in fact, compared to the two clowns running to control the 'most powerful country in the world' he may be the least evil option).

      Who really c

    • Re:What a Waste (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ichthus ( 72442 ) on Thursday September 22, 2016 @11:41PM (#52944333) Homepage
      Attempting to affect public opinion through comical posts is worse than bribing public officials? I don't think you know what you're saying.
  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Thursday September 22, 2016 @10:34PM (#52943997)

    There are a LOT of good reasons to be against Hillary without being for Trump.

    A big one is this - after what she and the DNC did to Sanders, you all plan to reward her by voting for Hillary? Do you think the DNC will become more, or less corrupt if Hillary wins.

    In the end it will not make that vast a difference in Trump or Clinton wins, two arms springing from the same body politic. So don't vote to destroy whatever shred of goodness was left of the DNC by rewarding corruption and massive corporate backroom deals which will be rewarded lavishly during her time in office (just as they were while she was secretary of state).

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      I'll never support Trump. No matter who the alternative is.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        I'll never support Trump. No matter who the alternative is.

        Adolf Hitler?

    • by Frank Burly ( 4247955 ) on Thursday September 22, 2016 @11:40PM (#52944323)
      But really what did the DNC do do Sanders (who was not a Democrat prior to trying to run for President as one)?

      They said mean things in private? They stacked the deck for her prior to Bernie running? And you think it is worth fucking-over America (the globe even!) so that she is not "rewarded"?

      It will make a yuuuuge difference whether HRC or Trump wins. Remember that people were saying there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between Bush and Gore. Does anyone on Earth think that Gore would have been as bad in policy or implementation on any issue?

      Trump is Bush with more bankruptcies, less military service, and no discernible interest in anything about the job other than power.

      I sincerely hope it is only Theilatans modding you up.

      • The DNC are cheaters (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Friday September 23, 2016 @01:08AM (#52944627) Homepage Journal

        But really what did the DNC do do Sanders (who was not a Democrat prior to trying to run for President as one)?

        They said mean things in private? They stacked the deck for her prior to Bernie running? And you think it is worth fucking-over America (the globe even!) so that she is not "rewarded"?

        Early this year, when Bernie raised $60 million and Clinton had raised only $20, the DNC moved $60 million in funds earmarked for local campaigns directly into Clinton's account [politico.com].

        Bernie and Clinton won popular votes by roughly the ratio of their campaign spending, so the extra $60 million made a huge difference.

        Bernie had momentum at the time, and would have outspent Clinton 3-to-1 in political ads. The extra advertizing would have very likely won him many of the early state primaries, and would have likely won him the national primary as a result.

        Moving the money as they did is almost certainly a violation of federal election law, likely a violation of money-laundering law, and goes completely against any sense of neutrality in the DNC towards candidates. (Additionally, they short-sheeted all the local campaigns, giving republicans an edge in many areas.)

        Effectively, they took all the campaign contributions people gave to Bernie and wasted them.

        And you think it is worth fucking-over America (the globe even!) so that she is not "rewarded"?

        It's worth standing up and saying "no" to corruption.

        The people who gave support to Bernie Sanders should not have had their efforts wasted due to cheating.

        • by skam240 ( 789197 )

          Bernie couldn't win New York by a long shot. Sure, I voted for the guy but if you can't carry New York as a Democrat or at least come close then you are just not the party's candidate.

          I'd say the same for California but we vote so late in the primaries we don't matter.

      • by zedaroca ( 3630525 ) on Friday September 23, 2016 @01:44AM (#52944769)

        And you think it is worth fucking-over America (the globe even!) so that she is not "rewarded"?

        The premise that she is not fucking-over America and the globe is wrong. She is provably already doing that.

        Do you think corrupting American elections is not fucking-over America? Hell, if the Russians did as much as telling the truth to change the election results that is seem as bad. What about cheating on the elections and stripping the American people from the candidate they apparently wanted?
        Isn't Libya and Syria to fuck the globe over? What about the recent weapons selling to the UAE, that are currently bombing civilians in Yemen?

        If/when Trump start mass murdering we'll have a basis of comparison, but so far Clinton is the one fucking-over America and the globe.

      • by whodunit ( 2851793 ) on Friday September 23, 2016 @05:14AM (#52945267)

        Trump is Bush with more bankruptcies, less military service, and no discernible interest in anything about the job other than power.

        Obama's administration carried on most of the Bush-era policies that Democrats loathed the most - and Hillary's being billed by everyone, even Obama, as Obama's Third Term.

        Have fun with that!

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday September 23, 2016 @12:20AM (#52944499)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by Gojira Shipi-Taro ( 465802 ) on Thursday September 22, 2016 @10:37PM (#52944015) Homepage

    Guess I shouldn't be surprised. Glad I gave up on Oculus the second Facebook bought them.

    He's proven himself to be a duplicitous piece of shit since the acquisition. This is not shocking.

    Hillary is also a piece of shit, but not one that would immediately alienate 90% of the rest of the planet, and likely plunge us into thermonuclear war within 6 months of taking office.

    • by iMadeGhostzilla ( 1851560 ) on Thursday September 22, 2016 @10:54PM (#52944093)

      That's ignorance talking, making a leap from Trump is loud and obnoxious to he would fire nukes. Trump is a nationalist and doesn't want to be engaged outside of what directly confronts US interests. In that he's like Obama, who was extremely cautions about intervening for humanitarian or idealistic reasons. Hillary on the other side is an old-school interventionist.

      Want more confirmation besides her track record? She pressured Obama into intervening in Libya. She even prevented the US' military from negotiating peace with Gaddhafi through the channel they established in secrecy from her. Check it out on Washington Times, all the records are there. Libya for all practical purposes doesn't exist anymore. When Obama saw how it turned out he refused to go into Syria. And then 51 neocon "diplomats" in a leaked cable urged Obama to strike at Assad, who is a Russian ally. Almost all of them support Hillary.

      So who's more likely to start a nuclear war?

      • by dywolf ( 2673597 )

        trump cant let anything slide.
        he is so thin skinned he feels he has to respond to everything that comes his way.
        there is no being "the bigger man", there is no restraint.
        he is putin with a larger ego, thinner skin, more erratic behavior, and less thoughtfulness.
        he has suggested revoking the civil rights of American citizens starting with the ones that don't agree with him.
        he has openly questioned why we don't use nukes more often.

        so the answer to your question is without a doubt: Trump.

    • by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <mashikiNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday September 23, 2016 @02:24AM (#52944919) Homepage

      Guess there's a reason why when you're an ideologue you believe all the shit put before you as fact. Remember Hillary's "pepe the frog is a symbol of white supremacy" bit that you swallowed hook line and sinker? Yeah, published by the same rag that claims this to be fact, and has yet to publish a correction stating that they were trolled into believing that. If you're trusting the daily beast to be factual, then you likely trust media matters not to take things out of context to create political talking points and carry agendas.

  • so what? It's his right and I'm all for it. (doesn't mean I "agree" w/ him on everything and that's just dandy) #everythingoutForCmdrTaco
  • Brilliant insight. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Boronx ( 228853 ) <evonreis AT mohr-engineering DOT com> on Thursday September 22, 2016 @11:01PM (#52944125) Homepage Journal

    The American Revolution was funded by wealthy individuals

    On the one hand, the American Revolution was also lead by philosophers, scientists, judges, generals, etc. These guys had some ideas about how to create a better system than what they inherited.

    On the other hand, you have Donald Trump. His philosophical concept of government is that "Only I can fix it" and "All you need to know is that I'll take care of it. Don't worry about." "There's going to be so much winning." etc. Luckey and Thiel should be so proud.

  • by 0100010001010011 ( 652467 ) on Thursday September 22, 2016 @11:07PM (#52944153)

    As long as Hillary wants to 'correct the record' Trump gets his online engine too. The DNC's youth (and staying power online) was mostly behind the Bernie campaign. Any attempt by Hillary to 'connect to the youth' has backfired terribly. Most recently in her Between Two Ferns interview.

    After some 'incidents' the high schools around here let students know that their first amendment rights didn't go to football games. Some photo of a bunch of teens with a trump banner saluting. It went 'viral' in this region. If I had to guess knowing teens they're Trump because their parents are "Anyone but". A lot of the 4chan, "shit posting" youth of 2016 is behind Trump and it shows on Reddit (Where there's a strong correlation to "Red Pillers"). [And consequently a lot of Bernie teens because their parents are Trumpers].

    It's 21st century political satire. If the memes were in the NY Times as a political cartoon it would be ignored.

  • by ClickOnThis ( 137803 ) on Thursday September 22, 2016 @11:08PM (#52944161) Journal

    I heard once that this is the classic dilemma in politics: do you vote for the knave, or vote for the fool?

    The answer: vote for the knave, because the knave is competent. But watch the knave like a hawk.

    I'll leave it to the reader to decide which is which in this discussion.

  • What a fucktard (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Thursday September 22, 2016 @11:15PM (#52944187)

    Palmer Luckey: "You can't fight the American elite without serious firepower. They will outspend you and destroy you by any and all means."

    Gee, with a net worth of $700M, you yourself are in danger of being a member of the elite you profess to despise but secretly long to join.

    It must truly suck to be a member of the 'nouveau nouveau riche', when the 'nouveau riche' won't even give you the time of day, let alone take you seriously, and I feel for you - NOT. The fact that you have to resort to shitposting to gain any audience at all probably has nothing to do with the newness of your wealth. I'm sure it has everything to do with the fact that you're an ignorant, whiny, petulant brat who can afford a seat at the 'grownup table' but who can't act or talk like an adult. (Come to think of it, that makes you the PERFECT Trump shill). If you ever grow up to the point where trolling, bitching, and crowing give way to reasoned, thoughtful discourse, (but I'm not holding my breath), then maybe you'll be taken seriously. Until then, STFU - adults are trying to have a conversation, and we don't need mini-Trump butting in when Big Trump is already making rude noises and sticking his tongue out at us.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22, 2016 @11:20PM (#52944217)

    Chelsea Clinton is on the board of directors of their parent company. Go look.

    Slashdot, do better. Put a disclaimer in next time.

  • I remember when... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stillpixel ( 1575443 ) on Thursday September 22, 2016 @11:33PM (#52944273) Homepage Journal

    When posts on /. were intelligent and the users replied with equal intelligence. Now it's no better than comment sections on any other website on the internet.

  • by Michael Woodhams ( 112247 ) on Friday September 23, 2016 @12:15AM (#52944481) Journal

    by giving power to Trump. Words fail me.

  • by irving47 ( 73147 ) on Friday September 23, 2016 @01:09AM (#52944639) Homepage

    You're saying this is bad, right? Have ya *heard* of George Soros?
    You're fighting against him, too, right?

  • by mentil ( 1748130 ) on Friday September 23, 2016 @02:28AM (#52944935)

    Almost all the money that Luckey/Oculus own came from Facebook, which has been in the news quite a bit for thinking about what they can do to help Trump lose the election. I imagine Zuck won't be very happy that the money he gave Oculus is being (indirectly) spent to go against his aims.

  • by inhuman_4 ( 1294516 ) on Friday September 23, 2016 @07:30AM (#52945739)
    Money man for what? People have been posting memes on reddit for years, long before this election. It doesn't cost any money to post a silly picture on the internet. This guy didn't / doesn't do jackshit. They call themselves "nimble America" but memes like nimble, centipede, coats, were established a year ago. He is just trying jump on the hype train. Expect to see some merchandise or or PAC get spun out of this.

Everybody needs a little love sometime; stop hacking and fall in love!

Working...