Marc Andreessen, the billionaire tech investor who co-founded Netscape, recently made the rounds on several podcasts to talk about how Democrats were so mean to him that they forced him to become a Donald Trump supporter. Andreessen’s obnoxious whining wouldn’t be so notable otherwise, given how many men in the tech industry have blamed the backlash against “wokeism” to explain their support of the MAGA movement. But the new interview published by The New York Times on Friday is interesting, if only because the Times redacted its own transcript to make Andreessen seem less stupid.
Andreessen spoke with New York Times opinion writer Ross Douthat and the hour-long interview was delayed in audio form by the show A matter of opinion. But the people who actually listened to the audio heard something that the readers couldn’t learn. Apparently, Andreessen believes that Hillary Clinton was actually president from 2017 until 2021 instead of Donald Trump.
Andreessen has been vocal about how leftist ideas have permeated every aspect of American culture in the late 2000s, with Silicon Valley companies coming under fire from all angles. And the people who read Times copy I saw this when reading the investor’s words:
Andreessen: So you’re in this sandwich of all your constituents, and then the press comes to you. There are activists who attack you, and then the (federal) government comes to you.
Dothat: But hey, the federal government is run by Donald Trump these days, right?
Andersen: Not real.
But if you actually listened to the audio, this is what you heard:
Andreessen: So you’re in this sandwich of all your constituents, and then the press comes to you. You’ve got activists coming to you. Then the government comes to you. And of course, the federal government has become more extreme under Hillary, and then, sorry… the federal government… we’ll talk about that more.
Dothat: But wait, the federal government is run by Donald Trump…
Andersen: Not real.
Dothat: …at this point, right? I mean, that’s the weird thing about the narrative, right?
It’s perfectly normal to clean up text to remove repeated words or just “um” and “ah” to make it easier to read. But deleting an entire line claiming “the federal government has become aggressively radicalized under Hillary” is ridiculous.
The New York Times defended the decision to delete the line in an email to Gizmodo on Friday.
“In the audio version of the interview, it is clear to the listener that Marc Andreessen said something wrong to Hillary (you can hear him trying to correct himself),” wrote Jordan Cohen, the Times’s executive director of communications. “We usually edit texts for clarity so as not to introduce factual errors, which is what happened here.”
The problem with this interpretation is that Adreesen didn’t really correct himself, but actually doubled down on his idea. Douthat goes on to ask Andreessen how Hillary could control when Trump had “real power” as president. Andreessen questions this hypothesis, asking: “Do you describe Donald Trump’s management of the federal government between 2016 and 2020?”
“Not quite effective. “I wouldn’t say that,” Douthat says. “At the same time, the Democratic Party in 2018 or 2019 was not in a position to pass some sweeping new legislation, whether to raise taxes or regulate Silicon Valley in all sorts of ways.”
While 2016 and 2020 were the years in which the US presidential election took place, Trump took office in January of 2017, so Andreessen would technically be right that Trump had no power during that first year he cites, 2016 But clearly this is not what he meant. He is trying to suggest that Trump was not actually in control of the government because there was a “deep state” thwarting his will.
When Gizmodo reached out to The Times, we noted how people like Curtis Yarvin, a far-right blogger, believe in the concept of a “cathedral” in which “real” power is supposed to lie. Yarvin believes that liberal institutions and those in journalism and academia have a real impact on society. Little did we know while emailing with the Times that they were about to publish an article Interview with Yarvin On Saturday morning. Jarvin mentions in the interview that he is communicating with Andreessen.
The rest of the Times’ interview with Andreessen is so trivial that it feels like a waste of time even mentioning it. Andreessen seems like a terrible victim of the modern world, with enemies on all sides constantly judging him. Andreessen sees tech founders as the true heroes of society who used to be able to start companies, make massive amounts of money, and then donate that money as they saw fit for endless accolades.
But now, people are raising questions about why billionaires are allowed to amass obscene amounts of wealth without accountability, often while feeding at the government’s teat, only to have exclusive say in how charity is distributed later in life. The real answer, of course, is to tax these billionaires in order to fund things for the greater good, but Andreessen doesn’t like that idea. You can listen to the full episode on YouTube If you really feel like subjecting yourself to this garbage.
These men have it all, billions of dollars, power and influence, and they still see themselves as victims in a society where Donald Trump is about to become president. They desperately want to have the one thing they can’t buy, the love and admiration they believe came with philanthropy. Ordinary people have dared to ask in recent years why the wealthy can only give away their money whenever and however they please, in a system that is far from meritocratic. The ruling class cannot afford this.
https://gizmodo.com/app/uploads/2022/11/cf48fa4e0ea0f1595fa0f336e4e1056e.jpg
Source link