5 ms·

> TikTok was already going all in "All in": What is the guarantee that their entire infrastructure will be on Google Cloud? You are assuming a lot about how th

> TikTok was already going all in "All in": What is the guarantee that their entire infrastructure will be on Google Cloud? You are assuming a lot about how their backend infrastructure is structured. > was ready to go all in on with Google until Donald reiterated, publicly, his demand that the US "get a cut" of any deal Define "all in". For me, all in is when the entire company gets bought out by Google. > his friends/himself profiting are likely synonymous. His personal interest and the national interest are the same, in his mind. Again, unsubstantiated claims a.k.a conspiracy theory. The fact is that his net worth has actually fallen drastically: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-14/trump-s-net-worth-in-office-is-down-300-million-in-10-decline https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-14/trump-s-n... If his motive is enriching himself/friends that should reflect in his/friends net worth.

xorcist 6y ago
Far from a conspiracy theory, Larry Ellison has been very vocal in his support of Trump (and a major donor!), and Safra Catz actually served on the Trump transition team.
- shripadk 6y ago
  > Far from a conspiracy theory, Larry Ellison has been very vocal in his support of Trump (and a major donor!), and Safra Catz actually served on the Trump transition team. I don't understand. Is being a donor automatically amount to corruption/illegal activity in the United States? I thought corporate donations to political parties were legal in the United States. If it is legal I don't see why the need to construct a conspiracy theory around it?
  - HenryBemis 6y ago
    European here: donor/lobbying imho is the legalized bribing in the USA. It is annoying some people when I phrase it like this, but hey, people who sit on a big chair tend to want to continue sitting on said chair. And donors' cash helps to that objective. So yes, I don't care if it's Larry or John, or pual, or Ringo, or George, if I pay you money to stay in power, and in exchange I get to benefit from that, you can call it what you want. I call it bribing/kickback/fraud/etc. Money went from person A to person B. Person B made a decision so only person A profitted. I see a pattern. Don't you?
    - shripadk 6y ago
      > legalized bribing in the USA Then that is how it is in the rest of the World. I don't see why USA should be held with a different set of standards when literally all elections fought in every part of the world works through donations (be it corporate or private citizens). Very few countries banned corporate donations and those who did actually made it even worse. Take Brazil for instance: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/here-s-what-happened-when-brazil-banned-corporate-donations-in-elections/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/here-s-what-happened-... Only the rich could contest elections (as they used their own money). People from lower/middle income strata hardly received any donations. Banning corporate donations doesn't stop corporates from influencing elections. Corporates can themselves fund and run campaigns on individual issues that concern them and mobilize support with clever messaging. > Money went from person A to person B. Person B made a decision so only person A profitted. I see a pattern. Don't you? Yes everyone can see a "pattern" but that doesn't amount to corruption. That amounts to just an allegation. An allegation needs to be established through some legal route where in it is concluded without shred of doubt that the office was misused for helping out someone. Either a money/document/wiretapping trail that can connect the two things. If you cannot establish it then it remains a "conspiracy theory". Nothing more.
      - HenryBemis 6y ago
        Rich getting mega-rich, and poor remain in poverty. If that is an allegation, then I am a conspiracy freak (I am not). When we speak about USA and you bring Brazil in the discussion (whataboutism), you lower the bar. My "ideal" societies (progress, freedom, respect, and other such 'metrics') do NOT include Brazil, China, Iran, Russia, North Korea, Turkey. Brazil has selected as a ruler a former army general* who enjoys militarisation and is a fan of a dictatorship. I think the discussion ends here. Brazil may be doing 100 other things "good", but "showed that in 2010, about 6 percent of the Brazilian population lived in favelas and other slums" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Favela https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Favela). 6%? Seriously? I (-apologies for the bias-) prefer to hold in highest standards the EU, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a very few more. Although imperfect, still far better standard of Living than other countries/regiions. That said, my ideal society is a Star Trek (TNG) one, where everyone contributes how they can, in a balance matter, everyone has free healthcare, everyone has a food replicator and never goes hungry. *to avoid any misunderstanding, I am a honorable discharged army officer (of my country - NATO member), and I respect the Military-ies and what Military represents (protect the integrity of the land/sea/air)(and do NOT interfere in politics) Edit: Brazil is a corrupt nation. Perhaps if the haves start caring for the have-nots, and the poverty/inequality is reduced, education is improved, then in 10-20-30 years Brazil will be VERY different to what it is now. These things take time. Moving to a good direction won't take you there tomorrow.
  - xorcist 6y ago
    Again, no conspiracy. Conspiracies exist, but this is not it. Everyone involved is very open about what is going on here. Ellison is open about supporting Trump. To say that Trump has been open about Tiktok is probably an understatement. Oracle has now won a high profile cloud contract they wouldn't have secured otherwise. They have an obvious shared interest. Pay my back and I'll pat yours.
    - shripadk 6y ago
      These are still conspiracies. Unless you can prove beyond doubt that the office of the President of the United States was misused to benefit Oracle because of the friendship between Trump and Ellison then yes your theory can be proved. That can be through money trail/paper trail/wiretapping. Anything that can establish without doubt that the two have a connection. Innocent until proven guilty. Or did we throw that axiom out the window? Trump was a businessman prior to becoming the US President. It is obvious that he has friends in all places. Else he would never have been able to do any sort of business in the first place. Does just having support or being a friend with a billionaire amount to corruption? What if Google was the beneficiary of the deal and not Oracle? Or what if Apple was the beneficiary of the deal and not Oracle? Apple has also benefited from Trump's interventions. "Tim Cook said during an interview with Fox Business that the Trump administration enabled Apple to enter the Indian retail market." [1] Does this also amount to corruption now? [1]: https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/apple-ceo-tim-cook-said-the-trump-administration-directly-intervened-to-help-the-iphone-maker-break-into-india/articleshow/74441096.cms https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/apple-ceo-tim-cook-... > They have an obvious shared interest. Pay my back and I'll pat yours. Even if there was some "obvious" shared interest it helps the US in the end doesn't it? It is not like it is something against USA. So what is the problem here?
      - orestarod 6y ago
        Conspiracy theory differs from conspiracy "theory" in what clues you have, without needing concrete, legal evidence that could result in a court decision. In the sense you say it, NSA mega-surveillance was just a "conspiracy theory" before Snowden blew the whistle. If one has IQ over 20, it was obviously not a "theory", despite the fact no court-ready evidence was available. So instead of a blanket statement that every case where no concrete legal evidence exists is equally false, each conspiracy case shall be treated separately. A person with personal ties with Trump getting a direct deal from a Trump driven decision has more basis of corruption and personal relations involvement than Tim saying the government policy eased their entrance to India.

xorcist 6y ago

Far from a conspiracy theory, Larry Ellison has been very vocal in his support of Trump (and a major donor!), and Safra Catz actually served on the Trump transition team.

shripadk 6y ago
> Far from a conspiracy theory, Larry Ellison has been very vocal in his support of Trump (and a major donor!), and Safra Catz actually served on the Trump transition team. I don't understand. Is being a donor automatically amount to corruption/illegal activity in the United States? I thought corporate donations to political parties were legal in the United States. If it is legal I don't see why the need to construct a conspiracy theory around it?
- HenryBemis 6y ago
  European here: donor/lobbying imho is the legalized bribing in the USA. It is annoying some people when I phrase it like this, but hey, people who sit on a big chair tend to want to continue sitting on said chair. And donors' cash helps to that objective. So yes, I don't care if it's Larry or John, or pual, or Ringo, or George, if I pay you money to stay in power, and in exchange I get to benefit from that, you can call it what you want. I call it bribing/kickback/fraud/etc. Money went from person A to person B. Person B made a decision so only person A profitted. I see a pattern. Don't you?
  - shripadk 6y ago
    > legalized bribing in the USA Then that is how it is in the rest of the World. I don't see why USA should be held with a different set of standards when literally all elections fought in every part of the world works through donations (be it corporate or private citizens). Very few countries banned corporate donations and those who did actually made it even worse. Take Brazil for instance: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/here-s-what-happened-when-brazil-banned-corporate-donations-in-elections/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/here-s-what-happened-... Only the rich could contest elections (as they used their own money). People from lower/middle income strata hardly received any donations. Banning corporate donations doesn't stop corporates from influencing elections. Corporates can themselves fund and run campaigns on individual issues that concern them and mobilize support with clever messaging. > Money went from person A to person B. Person B made a decision so only person A profitted. I see a pattern. Don't you? Yes everyone can see a "pattern" but that doesn't amount to corruption. That amounts to just an allegation. An allegation needs to be established through some legal route where in it is concluded without shred of doubt that the office was misused for helping out someone. Either a money/document/wiretapping trail that can connect the two things. If you cannot establish it then it remains a "conspiracy theory". Nothing more.
    - HenryBemis 6y ago
      Rich getting mega-rich, and poor remain in poverty. If that is an allegation, then I am a conspiracy freak (I am not). When we speak about USA and you bring Brazil in the discussion (whataboutism), you lower the bar. My "ideal" societies (progress, freedom, respect, and other such 'metrics') do NOT include Brazil, China, Iran, Russia, North Korea, Turkey. Brazil has selected as a ruler a former army general* who enjoys militarisation and is a fan of a dictatorship. I think the discussion ends here. Brazil may be doing 100 other things "good", but "showed that in 2010, about 6 percent of the Brazilian population lived in favelas and other slums" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Favela https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Favela). 6%? Seriously? I (-apologies for the bias-) prefer to hold in highest standards the EU, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a very few more. Although imperfect, still far better standard of Living than other countries/regiions. That said, my ideal society is a Star Trek (TNG) one, where everyone contributes how they can, in a balance matter, everyone has free healthcare, everyone has a food replicator and never goes hungry. *to avoid any misunderstanding, I am a honorable discharged army officer (of my country - NATO member), and I respect the Military-ies and what Military represents (protect the integrity of the land/sea/air)(and do NOT interfere in politics) Edit: Brazil is a corrupt nation. Perhaps if the haves start caring for the have-nots, and the poverty/inequality is reduced, education is improved, then in 10-20-30 years Brazil will be VERY different to what it is now. These things take time. Moving to a good direction won't take you there tomorrow.
- xorcist 6y ago
  Again, no conspiracy. Conspiracies exist, but this is not it. Everyone involved is very open about what is going on here. Ellison is open about supporting Trump. To say that Trump has been open about Tiktok is probably an understatement. Oracle has now won a high profile cloud contract they wouldn't have secured otherwise. They have an obvious shared interest. Pay my back and I'll pat yours.
  - shripadk 6y ago
    These are still conspiracies. Unless you can prove beyond doubt that the office of the President of the United States was misused to benefit Oracle because of the friendship between Trump and Ellison then yes your theory can be proved. That can be through money trail/paper trail/wiretapping. Anything that can establish without doubt that the two have a connection. Innocent until proven guilty. Or did we throw that axiom out the window? Trump was a businessman prior to becoming the US President. It is obvious that he has friends in all places. Else he would never have been able to do any sort of business in the first place. Does just having support or being a friend with a billionaire amount to corruption? What if Google was the beneficiary of the deal and not Oracle? Or what if Apple was the beneficiary of the deal and not Oracle? Apple has also benefited from Trump's interventions. "Tim Cook said during an interview with Fox Business that the Trump administration enabled Apple to enter the Indian retail market." [1] Does this also amount to corruption now? [1]: https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/apple-ceo-tim-cook-said-the-trump-administration-directly-intervened-to-help-the-iphone-maker-break-into-india/articleshow/74441096.cms https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/apple-ceo-tim-cook-... > They have an obvious shared interest. Pay my back and I'll pat yours. Even if there was some "obvious" shared interest it helps the US in the end doesn't it? It is not like it is something against USA. So what is the problem here?
    - orestarod 6y ago
      Conspiracy theory differs from conspiracy "theory" in what clues you have, without needing concrete, legal evidence that could result in a court decision. In the sense you say it, NSA mega-surveillance was just a "conspiracy theory" before Snowden blew the whistle. If one has IQ over 20, it was obviously not a "theory", despite the fact no court-ready evidence was available. So instead of a blanket statement that every case where no concrete legal evidence exists is equally false, each conspiracy case shall be treated separately. A person with personal ties with Trump getting a direct deal from a Trump driven decision has more basis of corruption and personal relations involvement than Tim saying the government policy eased their entrance to India.