The Authoritarian Stack: How Tech Billionaires Are Building a Post-Democratic Us
Posted2 months agoActiveabout 2 months ago
authoritarian-stack.infoOtherstory
calmnegative
Debate
70/100
AuthoritarianismTech BillionairesDemocracy
Key topics
Authoritarianism
Tech Billionaires
Democracy
The article 'The Authoritarian Stack' explores how tech billionaires are influencing the US towards a post-democratic system, sparking discussion on the implications of their actions and the potential erosion of democracy.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Moderate engagementFirst comment
19m
Peak period
7
6-12h
Avg / period
4.2
Comment distribution21 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 21 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Nov 3, 2025 at 2:18 AM EST
2 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Nov 3, 2025 at 2:37 AM EST
19m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
7 comments in 6-12h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Nov 6, 2025 at 7:26 PM EST
about 2 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45796607Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 12:08:29 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
And none of that seems like a feature to me.
> maybe
I know, it's more exciting to play the worst scenarios in one's head, but… _maybe not_?
Wholly disagree you can.
> I know, it's more exciting to play the worst scenarios in one's head, but… _maybe not_?
I don't know where I read this recently that russians never believe that something good can happen and americans never believe something bad can happen. It feels so real these last couple of years. You are obviously having democratic backslide and going into a bad place, but the absolute inability to realise this (at least from a large segment of the population) looking from the outside, is bordering on the absurde. There have been many dominant empires that fell. It is the peak of hubris that it can't happen to you.
I would go so far as to say few of our so-called democratic countries are actually so. But one thing is for certain, a democracy can't be authoritarian by definition.
In a very real and genuine sense, to most Americans "democracy and freedom" is simply whatever the USA does. This sentiment is then, after the fact, stitched into acceptability by these sorts of intellectual deflections.
It is understandable. The Netherlands is democracy to comes closest to ancient Athens. Twenty different political parties represented in parliament. A people who for 500 years have never agreed upon anything.
Liechtenstein and some Swiss cantons are the few remaining examples of direct democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy#Examples
Athens killed Socrates using an authoritarian law after all.
Any state, democracy included, can be a tyrant (i.e. cruel and oppressive) against its perceived enemies.
Is it? It seems incredibly stupid to me. It's putting 'strength', or intensity and effectiveness of action, above whether the action is a good idea or even makes sense. It seems to make competence secondary.
Second, only men could vote in Athens. Do you consider that to be acceptable in a democracy?
It's a whopper of a run-on sentence, but it's in there: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Athens itself killed Socrates for violation of speech laws and yet they are considered a democracy. This would be a violation of the First Amendment which would be considered an unalienable right that the Declaration of Independence was talking about.
There is an interesting point, "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". If the governed consent to an authoritarian law, why would they cease to be a democracy? If 100% of voters voted to ban wearing the color green, they wouldn't be a democracy?
I think you are basically saying democracy means good policies and authoritarianism means bad policies so you cannot have authoritarianism and democracy, but that just isn't the definition of either of those words.
demos in Ancient Greek demokratia were blocks of assigned citizenship, so it is operationally closer to an electoral college than some idealistic "power to the people" interpretation of the term
who are the people? in Ancient Athens, "the people" ruling the demokratia were the male land owners... about 60% of the people in the city were excluded, most of them being slaves
Democracy now is a hugely complex ongoing negotiation, not some simplistic "dictionary says" naïvité. Go read Democracy in America, Aristotle is a bit outdated.
If anything a better analysis comes from the book Logic of Political Survival. The selectorate and the winning coalition are much smaller than previous generations because of the massive accumulation and consolidation of wealth. So they dont have to do jack shit for the majority of people because theyre irrelevant in gaining or holding power. The majority of Americans hold and wield absolutely no political power in placing anyone in power. And then are surprised when they get wrecked. Or maybe theyre not surprised because they simple dont know how much theyre country is getting looted