6 ms·

Members of Congress will use this event as a catalyst for fundraising, soon after the election they will draft legislation that threatens to control and/or regu

Members of Congress will use this event as a catalyst for fundraising, soon after the election they will draft legislation that threatens to control and/or regulate the tech giants. Shortly after that the lobbyists representing Big Tech get wind of this new legislation on the horizon and donations will flow like a river to the PACs and re-election campaigns, then the proposed legislation will be shelved.

wdn 6y ago
If you see how much wealth the politicians, especially the one holding important position, you see why they want the job for a merely $200,000 a year. Clinton and Obama got very wealth after their presidency. Pelosi wealth goes up many fold for becoming speaker of the house. Not only their wealth go up, everyone around them got a lot wealthier too.
- wavefunction 6y ago
  Why are you not mentioning any Republicans?
  - alsetmusic 6y ago
    > Why are you not mentioning any Republicans? That’s a good point. It’s not like Trump’s holdings weren’t fed a line of patrons while he was in office. Seems odd to leave out the most prominent and recent example.
    - Izkata 6y ago
      Trump didn't make money off of the presidency, if anything he spent (2016-2017) or lost (2020) wealth: https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/09/politics/forbes-400-donald-trump-wealth/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/09/politics/forbes-400-donald-tr...
      - macg333 6y ago
        Just because he didn't make money because he's a failure at business and his particular ventures were negatively affected by the coronavirus (the explanation given in your article) completely ignores that he funneled a substantial amount of tax payer dollars into his private ventures by spending so much time there with his security detail.
      - bernulli 6y ago
        That’s not what the article says at all. It says that his hotel businesses went south due to COVID. That’s orthogonal to the myriad ways he extracted money from being a president.
        Izkata 6y ago
        ...incorrect, that's the second dip only. The virus wasn't around for the first.
        bernulli 6y ago
        The article you linked makes no statement about the origin of that first dip. Regardless, whatever dips there are, this is completely unrelated to him using his position for personal gain, which is the original discussion here.
      - lostlogin 6y ago
        His tax returns show he didn’t make any to start with - or possibly more accurately, he just avoided saying he made any money and thereby didn’t pay any tax. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-trump-taxes.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-tru...
        seanmcdirmid 6y ago
        I’m betting he did his taxes right and really is just insolvent.
      - chillwaves 6y ago
  - kortilla 6y ago
    Because there is plenty coverage of Republican sleaze. The mistake is in thinking one set of politicians is “doing the right thing”. Additionally, as of tomorrow the Republicans are irrelevant when it comes to the selecting a party to lobby. Democrats control the house, the senate, and the presidency. Keep their coffers lined and you keep the regulation at bay.
    - wernercd 6y ago
      Except Democrats are promising regulation, taxes and the like. IE the mistaken thought that Democrats won't remove 230 - despite Obama, Biden, etc all saying they want to remove it (if for different reasons than Trump, etc) https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/17/21070403/joe-biden-president-election-section-230-communications-decency-act-revoke https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/17/21070403/joe-biden-presid... And with promises of Paris Accord, Green New Steal and removal of stuff like the Keystone Pipeline... It's funny to think "democrat control" and "keep regulations at bay" could be included in the same paragraph.
      - kortilla 6y ago
        > It's funny to think "democrat control" and "keep regulations at bay" could be included in the same paragraph. Well that’s been how Democrat control has worked out at the federal level for the last 50 years or so. Regulation does indeed get passed, but it’s against narrow industries (e.g. natural resource extraction). Given the revolving door between the biggest tech companies and the Biden/Obama administration, I suspect that will magically escape anything beyond superficial changes.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - RobRivera 6y ago
    clearly because of political astroturfing. there I explicitly stated what you are insinuating with your simple question. his/her point still stands; famous politicians gain wealth from said fame. can we stay on track here?
    - harry8 6y ago
      Yellen getting paid millions for public speaking to banks and hedge funds. And now she's going to regulate them. I'm sure those million dollar paychecks won't affect her judgement at all. I'm sure the insight based on intelligence and expertise, completely outside of getting an advantage understanding and/or influencing regulatory behaviour is what they all felt was worth the money. I'm sure it's all completely legal but it's completely corrupt. The best we can hope for is she doesn't let these intended bribes influence her - and she may not. Fame you say? Do you really believe that? If you do does it matter that the optics are foul and most won't agree? Square that when people are going broke and wondering about food and children's future when considering her millions in fees.
- hooande 6y ago
  Fame has a direct financial value. Any US president is among the most famous and well known people on earth. trump will make more money from speaking appearances than he did from any of his businesses over the last several decades
  - swarnie_ 6y ago
    This is what I've never understood about post presentient lives. People like Trump and Bush can barely deliver a speech or speak coherently, who is paying to hear them attempt it??
    - esja 6y ago
      Difficult to prove, but many believe these sorts of payments are often a delayed bribe, for services rendered while in office. Look after us while you’re in power and we’ll look after you later. And other politicians watching this will notice, and will behave properly while they are in power as well.
    - drcross 6y ago
      People who want to say to their friends that they were in the same room as those people. It's social capital.
    - missedthecue 6y ago
      On trump, I agree, but Bush? Didn't you see Bush's eulogy for his father? He is a skilled public speaker, in spite of his infamous gaffes.
      - swarnie_ 6y ago
        I'll be honest i did not... He hasn't had much air time over here since leaving office, my opinion of him is all drawn from 2000-2008.
    - rtx 6y ago
      Same people buying his paintings.
- swader999 6y ago
  Trump apparently decreased his wealth severely.
indigochill 6y ago
> then the proposed legislation will be shelved My bet is when legislation appears it will pass and subtly entrench the incumbents. Win-win!
austincheney 6y ago
> to control and/or regulate the tech giants What is it exactly that qualifies Facebook to be a tech company? A database? A website? They display advertising.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  Perhaps it is the fact that they are one of the largest employers of software engineers in the world.
  - austincheney 6y ago
    That’s it? Expedia employs over 15000 software engineers, far more than anything else, and they aren’t a software company. Samsung has more software engineers than most tech companies have total employees and they aren’t a software company.
- Railsify 6y ago
  They move information around using software datacenters and the internet.

wdn 6y ago

If you see how much wealth the politicians, especially the one holding important position, you see why they want the job for a merely $200,000 a year. Clinton and Obama got very wealth after their presidency. Pelosi wealth goes up many fold for becoming speaker of the house. Not only their wealth go up, everyone around them got a lot wealthier too.

wavefunction 6y ago
Why are you not mentioning any Republicans?
- alsetmusic 6y ago
  > Why are you not mentioning any Republicans? That’s a good point. It’s not like Trump’s holdings weren’t fed a line of patrons while he was in office. Seems odd to leave out the most prominent and recent example.
  - Izkata 6y ago
    Trump didn't make money off of the presidency, if anything he spent (2016-2017) or lost (2020) wealth: https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/09/politics/forbes-400-donald-trump-wealth/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/09/politics/forbes-400-donald-tr...
    - macg333 6y ago
      Just because he didn't make money because he's a failure at business and his particular ventures were negatively affected by the coronavirus (the explanation given in your article) completely ignores that he funneled a substantial amount of tax payer dollars into his private ventures by spending so much time there with his security detail.
    - bernulli 6y ago
      That’s not what the article says at all. It says that his hotel businesses went south due to COVID. That’s orthogonal to the myriad ways he extracted money from being a president.
      - Izkata 6y ago
        ...incorrect, that's the second dip only. The virus wasn't around for the first.
        bernulli 6y ago
        The article you linked makes no statement about the origin of that first dip. Regardless, whatever dips there are, this is completely unrelated to him using his position for personal gain, which is the original discussion here.
    - lostlogin 6y ago
      His tax returns show he didn’t make any to start with - or possibly more accurately, he just avoided saying he made any money and thereby didn’t pay any tax. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-trump-taxes.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-tru...
      - seanmcdirmid 6y ago
        I’m betting he did his taxes right and really is just insolvent.
    - chillwaves 6y ago
- kortilla 6y ago
  Because there is plenty coverage of Republican sleaze. The mistake is in thinking one set of politicians is “doing the right thing”. Additionally, as of tomorrow the Republicans are irrelevant when it comes to the selecting a party to lobby. Democrats control the house, the senate, and the presidency. Keep their coffers lined and you keep the regulation at bay.
  - wernercd 6y ago
    Except Democrats are promising regulation, taxes and the like. IE the mistaken thought that Democrats won't remove 230 - despite Obama, Biden, etc all saying they want to remove it (if for different reasons than Trump, etc) https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/17/21070403/joe-biden-president-election-section-230-communications-decency-act-revoke https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/17/21070403/joe-biden-presid... And with promises of Paris Accord, Green New Steal and removal of stuff like the Keystone Pipeline... It's funny to think "democrat control" and "keep regulations at bay" could be included in the same paragraph.
    - kortilla 6y ago
      > It's funny to think "democrat control" and "keep regulations at bay" could be included in the same paragraph. Well that’s been how Democrat control has worked out at the federal level for the last 50 years or so. Regulation does indeed get passed, but it’s against narrow industries (e.g. natural resource extraction). Given the revolving door between the biggest tech companies and the Biden/Obama administration, I suspect that will magically escape anything beyond superficial changes.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- RobRivera 6y ago
  clearly because of political astroturfing. there I explicitly stated what you are insinuating with your simple question. his/her point still stands; famous politicians gain wealth from said fame. can we stay on track here?
  - harry8 6y ago
    Yellen getting paid millions for public speaking to banks and hedge funds. And now she's going to regulate them. I'm sure those million dollar paychecks won't affect her judgement at all. I'm sure the insight based on intelligence and expertise, completely outside of getting an advantage understanding and/or influencing regulatory behaviour is what they all felt was worth the money. I'm sure it's all completely legal but it's completely corrupt. The best we can hope for is she doesn't let these intended bribes influence her - and she may not. Fame you say? Do you really believe that? If you do does it matter that the optics are foul and most won't agree? Square that when people are going broke and wondering about food and children's future when considering her millions in fees.
hooande 6y ago
Fame has a direct financial value. Any US president is among the most famous and well known people on earth. trump will make more money from speaking appearances than he did from any of his businesses over the last several decades
- swarnie_ 6y ago
  This is what I've never understood about post presentient lives. People like Trump and Bush can barely deliver a speech or speak coherently, who is paying to hear them attempt it??
  - esja 6y ago
    Difficult to prove, but many believe these sorts of payments are often a delayed bribe, for services rendered while in office. Look after us while you’re in power and we’ll look after you later. And other politicians watching this will notice, and will behave properly while they are in power as well.
  - drcross 6y ago
    People who want to say to their friends that they were in the same room as those people. It's social capital.
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    On trump, I agree, but Bush? Didn't you see Bush's eulogy for his father? He is a skilled public speaker, in spite of his infamous gaffes.
    - swarnie_ 6y ago
      I'll be honest i did not... He hasn't had much air time over here since leaving office, my opinion of him is all drawn from 2000-2008.
  - rtx 6y ago
    Same people buying his paintings.
swader999 6y ago
Trump apparently decreased his wealth severely.

indigochill 6y ago

> then the proposed legislation will be shelved My bet is when legislation appears it will pass and subtly entrench the incumbents. Win-win!

austincheney 6y ago

> to control and/or regulate the tech giants What is it exactly that qualifies Facebook to be a tech company? A database? A website? They display advertising.

tsimionescu 6y ago
Perhaps it is the fact that they are one of the largest employers of software engineers in the world.
- austincheney 6y ago
  That’s it? Expedia employs over 15000 software engineers, far more than anything else, and they aren’t a software company. Samsung has more software engineers than most tech companies have total employees and they aren’t a software company.
Railsify 6y ago
They move information around using software datacenters and the internet.