this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2026
833 points (98.8% liked)

People Twitter

10395 readers
1070 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major celebrity, figure or any politician. You can replace the addres of .x.com to xcancel.com in the address. https://web.archive.org/save is an option. Archive.is is no longer recommended because they remove/alter content.
  7. If a tweet (or similar) makes a statement of fact, either mark it as "satire" in the body or provide the original source link backing up the statement (see rule 6)

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mecen@lemmy.ca 8 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (2 children)

They can sell to each other and centralize luxury and technology in their circle.

Mega corpos don't need poor consumers.

Edit:

Corpos want deregulation, monopolistic/cartelic market position, unaffordability for average people for education and technology.

[–] SupahRevs@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago

Agreed. We are already kind of there. We have enough food to feed everybody but the people who access it are those with enough money. Profitable food is what gets investments, not healthy food. And what we see more and more is that profits are not driven by feeding the best quality to the most people.

[–] womboflll@sh.itjust.works 5 points 7 hours ago

I was calling this 5 years ago and was called a loon.

Like history doesn't repeat or something.

[–] atomo@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago

So obvious it hurts. That's why these morons should read Marx, who provides a clear blueprint on how capitalism works. It's all there!

[–] ImWaitingForRetcons@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago

The top few percent spend do much more money compared to everyone else that the top companies will happily continue targeting them and making money hand over fist even if the bottom 90% can’t afford shit anymore.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 10 hours ago

How come these C-Suites never consider AI for the positions it would probably be best at: their own.

Isn't it funny how the "human employee removal ray" is never aimed at them?

[–] vala@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 14 hours ago

The point isn't to sell, it's to control

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 9 points 18 hours ago

Heard that CEO tenure is historically lower than it's ever been. So their response is, "sounds like the other guy's problem..."

Kind of seems like that's part of the problem? But what do I know, I'm just a toddler that stole Mommy's phone and typed this quickly before she found me and 6&__++3GFd GGG vgggvfh42467!:"hhhghgjjj!!!!!!!!!!

[–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 18 hours ago

Other corporations.

Capitalism is cannibalisitic. left unchecked it will destroy itself, the planet and everything else with it.

[–] Mac@mander.xyz 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They aren't looking far enough ahead to care.

[–] Lord743@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

Their end goal is technofeudalism.

[–] Quexotic@infosec.pub 7 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

You forgot the part where we're all dead and they're using AI to run everything.

[–] Napster153@lemmy.world 3 points 20 hours ago

And they're getting upset anyhow because the AI's solutions are just as braindead as the CEO's and Shareholders themselves.

This is literally watching the Kool Aid be drip fed day after day into your mouth.

[–] D_C@sh.itjust.works 50 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Question:
How is Big Oil™ going to make a profit when the world is ruined and the population are dead?

Answer:
Lol, don't care. That's someone else's problem.

[–] FearMeAndDecay@literature.cafe 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Seriously. Why don't care about long term plans, just short term profits

[–] Napster153@lemmy.world 4 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Because look at the age of those in charge. A majority are ancient, and they know they are dying.

They are trying to take their riches with them, like the Pharoahs of old.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 10 hours ago

And the rest have golden parachutes waiting for them regardless of how good or bad they actually end up being at their job

[–] red_tomato@lemmy.world 95 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (9 children)

If that ever happens I see three possible options:

  • Universal Basic Income
  • Communism (money is abolished)
  • Societal collapse
[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 59 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Two of those are communism and everyone knows that the owner class will never settle for not renting the ashes to us

[–] red_tomato@lemmy.world 52 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Societal collapse it is then!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism

- Friedrich Engels

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Absolutely you can sell the fruits of AI labour to unemployed people. Give them a universal basic income and a product worth spending that resource on and you can keep your 1% profit while the rest is taxed to support the citizens economy. You'll still be the richest man alive

[–] HerbGrower@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 day ago

I think it could work economically. But a world where humans don't really need to exist to keep the economy going is a little concerning when the economy is the absolute #1 thing governments and the media seem to care about.

But why do they? Why isn't human wellbeing considered more important? Actually IIRC the UK green party was looking to change that as an important metric.

[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 69 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (6 children)

AI was never the point. It was never going to replace the workforce, that was just a ruse to get enterprise on board; just like “LLMs will tell you any facts and do any research you want to know. It can create computer programs to automate anything you want. Image generators can make any movie or picture you want (even porn lol). Song generators can make entire albums for you.” was to sell it to rubes.

The real point is building out the cloud capacity so they no longer have to sell personal computers to anyone anymore.

It interferes with their profits when you can pirate, when you can create, when you can organize.

They will own the means of compute and you will rent the privilege of participating in society.

[–] lostoncalantha@lemmy.world 34 points 1 day ago

Don’t forget the other goal of surveillance capitalism plus enforcing the actions of the state. They know at some point this is all going to boil over. They’re building the walls to the prison all around us as we speak. Americans are not paying attention. AI + facial Recognition + citizen databases like what flock or Palantir are creating.

[–] paranoia@feddit.dk 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Sorry to say but that's kind of a shit conspiracy theory. I'd say it's more likely that billionaires just want to replace the entire working population with robots and AI. They don't need to sell anything to anyone, if their needs are provided by their electric slaves.

[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 9 points 1 day ago

This did not start with llm models. They are removing ownership, de facto ownership, from most of our electronics now. It can all be remotely bricked at their whim. Or terms changed, licenses that you agreed to on purchase without knowing and with no way of saying no to while still getting the product, that allow them to deny you access to what you bought.

That applies to the government, able to brick your shit with no court anything, secretly in a way you will never be able to challenge in court.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago

Yeah kinda. But I'd say it's about removing people's ability to make purchasing decisions in general more than about piracy specifically.

When you can decide whether or not you want to purchase the newest version of MS Office, you might decide that your current version works fine, there's no new features in the new version you need. So that means companies selling software licenses need to always be putting resources into improving the software to entice people to pay for newer versions.

If the software is all being run from a data center, you have to pay a subscription to be able to use the software and access your data. They no longer need to make any improvements to the software since they have reliable revenue from just maintaining the computers the software runs on.

It's techno-feudalism. In feudalism, the lord owns the land and the peasants work the land, try to make a living and then need to pay taxes to the lord. It's a similar dynamic with data centers. The tech lords own the computers, and they allow the peasants to do work on those computers. Businesses try to make some money on the computers owned by the tech lords, but everyone is required to pay a tax to the lord that owns the computers.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 day ago

Of all the jobs, CEO is probably one of the easiest jobs for an AI to replace. AI is excellent at being heartless, gaslighting shareholder, and telling people what they want to hear.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The capitalists are far, far beyond forgetting how capitalism... works.

Just... Henry Ford, pay your employees enough that wow you've grown your consumer base!

This is like macroecon 101 shit.

So, theyre either ravenously delusionally insane, or, they're openly declaring themselves the new nobility/aristocracy for the neo-feudalism we now live in.

... or both. Could be both.

[–] No1@aussie.zone 3 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

What if the Top 1%'s solution to climate change is to just keep going until 90% (or more) of the poors die off?

Then you can cut all your production and pollution by 90% (or more)

It doesn't have to be all at once. Just let people gradually boil, freeze, drown, starve, die of thirst, whatever.

[–] mycodesucks@lemmy.world 34 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (12 children)

Already, most of the economic growth comes from the purchases of the wealthy.

Normal people aren't profitable enough to sell to anymore. We're being positioned not as consumers but as slave labor.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Yes but if your business is creating anything other than luxury prodcuts, this makes 0 sense.

What do they think is going to happen when half the population can not reliably purchase basic food?

They're either not thinking, delusionally insane, or just full-on planning on creating mass societal collapse/upheaval.

Like sure, if the plan is... create a mass culling event... that they think they will... come out on top of...

Well I guess best of luck with that.

Historically?

Doesn't tend to work out so well for them.

You can squeeze people a lot and they'll delude themselves into thinking its fair... but too far?

Months where decades happen.

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago

In France, already 10% of the population depends on food-banks. In 2023, the largest non-profit providing meals and distributing food sent a distress call saying they were close to bankrupcy as the number of people in need is going up fast while donors have less and less to give being themselves crunched.

France's richest family, the Arnault, largely responsible for turbo-charging the trickle up trend in the country by buying political influence, rescued them by making a big donation.

The leader of the non-profit, who had been vocal about impoverishment of the population and growing inequalities because of the oligarchs, cannot say anything anymore: now he can't keep going without these oligarchs good will.

That's the plan. It's being executed right in front of us, in the open.

[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago

They expect those people to starve (‘and decrease the surplus population’) or accept company scrip for ‘cheaper’ food, thus recreating large-scale chattel slavery.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

That's just ridiculous, unless you're including stuff like stock, real estate or other investments as "purchases".

There's only so much bread and milk and books and sofas and cars that a wealthy household needs to purchase, and sure they will outspent other households in terms of cost per item, but not nearly enough to offset the sheer difference in volume.

Tldr, bullshit.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

If they replaced CEOs with AI the AI CEO would be smart enough to figure this out.

[–] blockheadjt@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago

By that point they can retire to a warm beach. The destroyed economy will be a problem for the rest of us.

[–] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 4 points 23 hours ago

Solid argument, but this problem is going to resolve itself because by then the planet will no longer be inhabitable.

[–] orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts 17 points 1 day ago

Everything is rich people selling to rich people now. Vegas, video games, PC components—everything. That’s the inevitable outcome of all of this. And then these assholes complain when the working class tighten their purse strings for their own survival.

[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 27 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sounds like a problem for someone else / some other day.

  • them
[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 15 hours ago

the billioniares are fleeing america before that happens.

Das Capital has entered the chat

[–] tryagain@sopuli.xyz 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

SELL THEIR PRODUCTS TO WHO, BEN? FUCKING CYBORG?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›