3 ms·

Really now? Social media played a large part in the election of the current regime, so why would they go after FB?

m0zg 7y ago
Why do you think it's the "current regime" that's going after FB? Before Barr, the "current regime" couldn't even launch investigations into fake "dossiers" and things of that nature, and this stuff with FB started back in 2016. Could be the deep state. Could, in fact, be both, competing with each other. Not being able to control public opinion is a pretty terrible thing for all of them. In the good old days you could resolve all this shit quietly by having a few conversations with the owners of the "free" press. Nowadays Zuck is less compliant.
- dboreham 7y ago
  Typo: fake "investigations" into dossiers.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    But the dossier was literally fake, and moreover, paid for by the Clinton campaign.
    - karatestomp 7y ago
      Is Steele's dossier what we're talking about? What I'm finding squares with my understanding that almost all of it's 1) pretty solidly corroborated, or 2) isn't confirmed but is plausible as supported by surrounding events, often with a lot of smoke-but-no-as-yet-discovered-fire sorts of public info surrounding it. Where's the info so thoroughly discrediting its claims that it makes sense to call the whole thing "fake"? Again, what I'm seeing (normal-ass sites and Wikipedia, not like The Nation or something, if that's a concern) strongly supports pretty much the polar opposite of that, and even a fairly strong refutation of much of that would still leave so much that labelling the whole thing "fake" would be unfair. What's up?
wpietri 7y ago
I suspect this particular action is the IRS actually doing its job for once, although I'm more suspicious of the recent DoJ and FTC moves to look more intensely at tech companies. But the reason to go after FB now would be to keep them in line. Facebook, which has an effective monopoly, understands the number one threat to their income and wealth is regulation. That's why they've just started telling people how they should be regulated. Doing things that are menacing but not immediately consequential is a great way for authoritarians to tilt things in their favor.

m0zg 7y ago

Why do you think it's the "current regime" that's going after FB? Before Barr, the "current regime" couldn't even launch investigations into fake "dossiers" and things of that nature, and this stuff with FB started back in 2016. Could be the deep state. Could, in fact, be both, competing with each other. Not being able to control public opinion is a pretty terrible thing for all of them. In the good old days you could resolve all this shit quietly by having a few conversations with the owners of the "free" press. Nowadays Zuck is less compliant.

dboreham 7y ago
Typo: fake "investigations" into dossiers.
- m0zg 7y ago
  But the dossier was literally fake, and moreover, paid for by the Clinton campaign.
  - karatestomp 7y ago
    Is Steele's dossier what we're talking about? What I'm finding squares with my understanding that almost all of it's 1) pretty solidly corroborated, or 2) isn't confirmed but is plausible as supported by surrounding events, often with a lot of smoke-but-no-as-yet-discovered-fire sorts of public info surrounding it. Where's the info so thoroughly discrediting its claims that it makes sense to call the whole thing "fake"? Again, what I'm seeing (normal-ass sites and Wikipedia, not like The Nation or something, if that's a concern) strongly supports pretty much the polar opposite of that, and even a fairly strong refutation of much of that would still leave so much that labelling the whole thing "fake" would be unfair. What's up?

wpietri 7y ago

I suspect this particular action is the IRS actually doing its job for once, although I'm more suspicious of the recent DoJ and FTC moves to look more intensely at tech companies. But the reason to go after FB now would be to keep them in line. Facebook, which has an effective monopoly, understands the number one threat to their income and wealth is regulation. That's why they've just started telling people how they should be regulated. Doing things that are menacing but not immediately consequential is a great way for authoritarians to tilt things in their favor.