<
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/05/billie-eilish-billionaires-super-rich>
"What exactly happened with Billie Eilish at the
Wall Street Journal Magazine
Innovator awards last week? Look it up, and you have a perfect thumbnail of the
modern information environment, its highs and lows. You can find out the exact
words used by the event host, Stephen Colbert, as he introduced her and
announced that the 23-year-old singer was giving away $11.5m (£8.8m) to fight
food poverty and the climate crisis. You can find out the exact words she used
after she took the stage. “We’re in a time right now where the world is really,
really bad and really dark and people need empathy and help more than kind of
ever, especially in our country,” she said. You can also get straight to the
controversial bit. “Love you all, but there’s a few people in here that have a
lot more money than me. If you’re a billionaire, why are you a billionaire? No
hate, but yeah, give your money away, shorties.”
You can get an instant read on Mark Zuckerberg’s reaction, at least if you
believe the
New York Post – he was there while his wife, Priscilla Chan,
received an award, and he signalled his displeasure by reportedly refusing to
clap. You can do a deep dive on what Eilish meant by “shortie” (was it a
catcall, an endearment or a simple statement of that fact that Zuckerberg is
5ft 7in and, by sheer coincidence, so is Jeff Bezos?). And you’ll find plenty
of global backlash, so familiar and predictable that it feels almost naive to
question its assumptions. “As gen Z are wont to do,” one
Sky News Australia
presenter said, “she seems to be a bit of a socialist, despite the fact that
she has millions and millions of dollars in the bank.” He segues straight to
Zohran Mamdani, the new mayor of New York City, noting that his biggest support
is from “high-income earners”.
These are the basic rules if you want to critique the billionaire class: you
cannot be wealthy yourself; if you’re in politics, you cannot be supported,
even at the ballot box, by anyone wealthy. These strictures are rigid but not
quantified; there is no “poor enough” you can be to get a pass. You could be on
the minimum wage, but still be too educated, or from too middle class a family.
You could give 100% of your money away, but if you said something and the world
listened, you would still have the privilege of a platform.
There are myriad contradictions and blind spots (for example, you remain
working class “made good”, however much money you have, so long as you are
using that identity in support of wealth), but don’t let those divert us from
the fundamental question: if the rules state that the only position from which
you can legitimately challenge a business oligarch is abject poverty, were the
rules, in fact, written by a billionaire?"
Via Kenny Chaffin.
Cheers,
*** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net Andrew Pam
http://xanadu.com.au/ Chief Scientist, Xanadu
https://glasswings.com.au/ Partner, Glass Wings
https://sericyb.com.au/ Manager, Serious Cybernetics
