• saltesc@lemmy.world
    1031·
    13 days ago

    I thought this image had already been vehemently claimed as not the guy, in order to stop putting this guy at risk.

    Internet must stop chasing updoots as a priority over chasing the right information.

      • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
        30·
        13 days ago

        Being targeted by the FBI as a way to show action being taken.

        Or weird nerds doing the Smithers thing.

        • supercriticalcheese@lemmy.world
          12·
          12 days ago

          I Think they might have seen this picture already!

          I am not an expert obviously so I will admit I might be wrong here, but overall I feel the likelihood is pretty low.

        • droporain@lemmynsfw.com
          73·
          13 days ago

          Yeah because the alphabet gang needs a reason and a crazy “smithers” thinks reasonable and logically? I mean you might as well say it’s not safe in NYC for anyone. Quit your pearl clutching and live a little deliciously.

    • realitista@lemm.ee
      123·
      13 days ago

      If it’s not him, I’m happy to share this image far and wide. If it is him, I’d feel a bit dirty about doing the police a favor and get everyone looking for the guy.

        • realitista@lemm.ee
          8·
          13 days ago

          That’s true, I’d prefer not to share this image at all, I don’t think it’s helpful.

  • Tinidril@midwest.socialEnglish
    861·
    13 days ago

    I swear that if they catch him he should run for president from prison. I don’t know how we keep them from pulling an Epstein on him but other than that it could actually work.

      • marcos@lemmy.world
        13·
        12 days ago

        Their timing was perfect. It was just around the time when “you” started losing all the power all over the internet.

        • Skullgrid@lemmy.world
          10·
          12 days ago

          in 2007, they had an article in the magazine titled : The year of Them

          https://content.time.com/time/specials/2007/personoftheyear/article/0,28804,1690753_1695417_1695397,00.html

          Hey there, you! It’s been, what, a year? I don’t think I’ve seen You since we named You Person of the Year 2006. What did we praise You for again? Oh, right: “for seizing the reins of the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game.” Remember? You wrote about it on Your blog! We cornered the world market in reflective film for all those mirror covers! Good times, those. Hey, You’ve lost weight, haven’t You?

          So I see You’ve been flipping through this issue. Ahem. This is a little awkward. Well, as You can see, we … we went in another direction this year. Please don’t take it personally. We still love You. But let’s face it: You had kind of an off year. It’s not like You ran for President or anything. O.K., a few of You did, but to be fair, Rudy was already Person of the Year once.

          Don’t get me wrong: all the things that made You You in 2006 are still there. All year long, You were YouTubing, Facebooking, Twittering, chronicling Your life and community, scrutinizing the candidates and the media, videotaping Yourself getting upset on behalf of Britney Spears.

          But who made the big noise in the Web 2.0 world this year? It was Them. The professionals, the old-media people, the moneymen — all of Them, conscious that there was profit in Your little labor-of-love socialist paradise. Story of Your life, right? You make the discoveries, They make the Benjamins.

          So if 2006 was the year of You, 2007 was the year of Them. Big media companies (like this one) stuffed their sites with blogs, podcasts and video.

          Celebrities became Web entrepreneurs. Hillary Clinton made a Sopranos-parody viral video. In 2006 the Web was a proving ground where new musicians could take their art directly to the public. And maybe it still is, but what band struck it big selling its new album online this year? A little undiscovered combo called Radiohead. Meanwhile, Will Ferrell launched funnyordie.com, where he posted comedy videos starring himself and celebrities like Bill Murray. Because, You know, Ferrell’s comic vision is just too avant-garde for mainstream Hollywood.

          The list goes on. Last year You gave us lonelygirl15, the cult-hit, independent online video series. In 2007, NBC bought an original online series and made it the first of its kind to air on broadcast television — but the show, quarterlife, was created by a couple of Them: Marshall Herskovitz and Ed Zwick, producers of classic TV shows thirtysomething and My So-Called Life. It debuts on NBC in February. I hope You’re getting a piece of that action.

          Because that’s what it was about in '07: getting a piece. Last year You shared the POY package with the founders of YouTube. This year Viacom sued YouTube for hosting its content — posted by You, fans of Viacom shows like The Daily Show, who wanted to celebrate and engage with your favorite programs. When the TV and movie screenwriters walked off the job, they grabbed pens and cameras and used the Web to end-around the old-content distributors and take their case directly to the public. Very You-school. But this was still about one set of Them (pro writers) fighting an even richer set of Them (media moguls) over the money to be made by moving in on Your territory, online video.

          Maybe what really happened in 2007 was not that They took over from You but that the boundaries between You and Them blurred. In some cases, You became one of Them, by cashing in on old-media celebrity. In 2007 MySpace pinup and recording star Tila Tequila, profiled in last year’s POY issue, made A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila, a bisexual dating show that was MTV’s most popular new show of the year. Perez Hilton went from online gossip renegade to VH1 host. Chris Crocker, of the notorious leave-Britney-alone video, signed a deal for a reality show.

          And then there’s 2008. The election is shaping up to be a delicate act of power sharing between You and Them. On the one hand, They’ve tried to keep control: CNN political comic relief: Obama Girl, the global-warming snowman video. On the other hand, You raised $4 million in one day for Ron Paul and freelanced that brilliant “1984” parody ad against Hillary on behalf of Barack Obama. You seem determined to go into 2008 not as a follower but as a player. (Although: Hillary invited You to help pick her campaign theme song on her website, and You went with Celine Dion? Dude.)

          Of course, all this assumes You define success in Their terms: signing contracts, getting paid, making the cover of this magazine. Fact is, You’re probably just as glad to take off that POY 2006 tiara and go back to dreaming up the future and getting recognized for it, much later, by the rest of us. It’s still Your world, after all. They just pretend to run it.

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          8·
          12 days ago

          Yeah and it was Vladimir Putin the year after that. So we had the Internet for a year until Putin came along and fucked it all up.

          Then they had Zuckerberg in 2010, Trump in 2016, Musk in 2021. Nice reference to get a feel for optimism in certain times while also being able to track some things going to shit.

    • 🐍🩶🐢@lemmy.worldEnglish
      16·
      12 days ago

      Dude whacked a CEO responsible for the pain, suffering, and even deaths of millions of people, all for the sake of profit. Plenty of Americans go bankrupt, suffer, or die if they have a medical issue. Healthcare is expensive and insurance companies get to dictate what medical care you receive and will do anything to not have to pay out without having to spend hours on the phone fighting for basic human decency. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to feel bad about having one less monster in the world.

      My hope is for the “status quo” to finally be disrupted enough to make a difference. Problem is Americans, and probably a good chunk of the human race, have the attention span of gerbils. Usually a week or two goes by and unless if the Media is continuing to ram it down our throats we move on to the next dopamine hit on TikTok. I might be bitter. I might be really bitter.

      • tacosanonymous@lemm.ee
        2·
        11 days ago

        The same country just decided they had enough of the status quo and elected a billionaire to the top office.

        Americans are all over the place and mostly lack understanding.

      • bennypr0fane@discuss.tchncs.de
        1·
        11 days ago

        Is the short attention span responsible for consistently electing people who take basic rights away from people? Bcs imo that is the real problem - not primarily the scum who do the deeds, but the idiots who keep electing them. It goes basically for most of the human race right now, but for the sake argument, let’s stick with Americans for now: WHY did they do that?

    • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      102·
      12 days ago

      This dude shot and killed a health insurance CEO. After about a day, insurers stopped denying coverage arbitrarily to people. The longer-term effects have not yet been seen, but I expect more to follow.

      Edit: bunch of people think it’s wrong for me to say that we can’t perfectly predict the future.

        • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          12·
          12 days ago

          There’s a lot of did ways the situation could develop positively that doesn’t involve more assassinations. Most likely, the industry pushes for legislation that disallows some of the scumier practices while allowing the bleed to continue.

          • Sanctus@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            12 days ago

            More likely to happen:

            Captured oligarch media keeps trying horribly to spin this. Eventually, shooter gets caught. Everyone who gets their info solely from mainstream sources will think the shooter a villain. Somehow they find a jury of stooges. Dude gets slapped with the hardest sentencing imaginable but not put to death. The orphan crushing machine pitters on.

            • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
              1·
              12 days ago

              Well aside from what I already mentioned, it’s possible for the manufacturing of consent against socialized medicine to be halted out of fear leading to M4A finally being adopted. It’s possible that this will lead to non-violent protests that agitate for change. Certain politicians might be able to leverage this in the near future to get a bill passed. It could happen that it’ll lead to a sudden increase in community aid and health facilities accommodating such.

              I’m not saying what is and isn’t likely to happen, all I’m saying is that we don’t know. Anyone who thinks they know what will happen is an idiot or a liar, possibly both.

  • yarr@feddit.nlEnglish
    2·
    11 days ago

    Just got caught. Looks like his name is Luigi Mangione and he’s from Maryland.

  • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    34·
    11 days ago

    if the guy in pennsylvania really him and he turns out to be a right wing racist piece of shit then tbh i don’t feel empathy for anyone involved in this story.

    • Randelung@lemmy.world
      647·
      13 days ago

      Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

      I’m sure you’d have preferred France to remain a monarchy because of moral absolutism?

      • Maxxie@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        96·
        13 days ago

        This isn’t a binary. You can oppose absolutism, revolutionary terror and the current neoliberal status quo all at the same time.

      • ToxicWaste@lemm.ee
        46·
        13 days ago

        you are painting an oversimplified picture.

        “i am sure you’d have preferred Gandhi to pick up a gun because he was met with violence?” we can chase eachother with such oversimplifications forever.

        reality is much more complicated than such simple statements. so lets not use their inflammatory nature and focus on the actual problem. which, in that case seems, that people feel disbanded by sociaty to such a degree.

        • marcos@lemmy.world
          162·
          12 days ago

          The point is that the CEO wasn’t in jail for murder, was he?

          What other options his victims had?

          • ToxicWaste@lemm.ee
            2·
            12 days ago

            the ceo is just the effect, not the cause. the us laws allow such bullshit and do not protect the weak (at all). what this one ceo did was, like what many other ceo’s do, immoral but legal. you cant jail someone for legal stuff.

            change the system and force them to adhere to modern moral standards. if they try to pull some bs now, it is quite easy to lock them away.

            • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
              5·
              12 days ago

              I just want to add to the conversation and bring forward the fact that health insurance corporations give millions to both parties during election cycles and continuously lobby for a system that allows them to do what they are currently doing.

              The people in the government aren’t just writing laws that allow health insurance companies to do whatever they want for shits and giggles. They’re convinced. Either by pressure campaigns done by their lobbyists or they just straight up use bribes. It’s seriously fucked up, and when I think corruption can’t get worse I learn something new and find out it already is far worse than I ever imagined.

            • marcos@lemmy.world
              21·
              12 days ago

              What the OP said means literally that if mass murdering people is legal, people will inevitably murder whoever makes the law and helps on that mass murdering. (What is not a universal law, but as sociology predictions go, is quite reliable.)

              It’s not a hard concept to understand. Also, it has a very distant relation to morality or legality.

        • Randelung@lemmy.world
          3·
          12 days ago

          I agree, that was (supposed to be) my point, too. ‘Murder is wrong in every case, no matter the context’ is too black and white, and just sitting on a high horse and preaching won’t remedy the underlying situation. The trolley problem exists for a reason. The French revolution was supposed to be the extreme counter example to disprove OP’s stance, since most people will look at the French revolution as justified and necessary, but murder was very much part of it.

          The ‘violent revolution inevitable’ quote was meant to show that it’s still a last resort, but alas, we’re apparently approaching that point.

      • Free_Opinions@feddit.uk
        323·
        13 days ago

        That’s the logical conclusion to draw when someone is criticizing the celebration of a vigilante murderer.

        No, I think we need more people like him. Much more. I’m sure that’s a wonderful world to live in.

    • ieatpwns@lemmy.world
      313·
      13 days ago

      Keep that same energy next time insurance companies boast record profits and record denials

    • saltesc@lemmy.world
      244·
      13 days ago

      That’s like having sympathy to the fall of Eagle’s Nest. Your humanity has ironically lost its way, lest you are in support of thousands murdered technically unfortunately dead with no recourse or solution to stop the killings.