3 ms·

Let be real here. It's very likely the former guy may run again. You may be against that, as would I. But I think its pretty creepy that a handful of large tech

by bko 5y ago

Let be real here. It's very likely the former guy may run again. You may be against that, as would I. But I think its pretty creepy that a handful of large tech CEOs will be able to get together and prevent that from happening by shutting him off from every social media platform and biasing search results, even so far as censoring our private communications via FB messenger, email or similar chat apps. You want to argue he did something illegal, should be in prison, should not be allowed to run? Fine, that's what the court system and respective political parties are for. But please don't tell me it's completely cool that tech CEOs get to decide who can and can't run. You may like the side they fall on this time, but how confident are you that you'll agree in the future? What if leadership changes? What do you think would happen when a politician has a credible shot of winning on a promise to break them up?

rootusrootus 5y ago
> get together That's probably the moment they could face regulation. Individually, it's their platform to choose what they want to host or not.
- bko 5y ago
  Do you think it was weird that when a damning article about a presidential candidate's son came out a few weeks before the election, every single media company and social network decided at the same exact time not to cover the story? Even so much as censoring the one paper that carried it and on private messages between people? Twitter, Facebook, NY Times, NPR and others. The former guy got banned on all the services all at once. Even tiktok which he was not on. Hell, even grindr banned him. There may not be direct coordination (maybe there is), but there's a signal and no one likes to make waves They all took a different direction about the "pee tape": https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/opinion/comey-book-steele-dossier.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/opinion/comey-book-steele... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/30/magazine/nothing-proves-you-right-like-getting-it-on-tape.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/30/magazine/nothing-proves-y... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/15/business/media/spooked-private-spies-news-media.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/15/business/media/spooked-pr... For more: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anytimes.com+trump+pee+tape https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anytimes.com+trump+pee...
  - maccam94 5y ago
    No, it's not weird at all that the mainstream media wouldn't publish such a story without multiple sources right before an election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspira...
    - roenxi 5y ago
      Seems a bit weird, there is quite a story there [0]. In the grand scheme of things is looks like a pretty routine case of potential corruption, but that being associated with the president's son like a big deal. Vigorously suppressing the story was a pretty suspect move. The complaint seems to be that the corruption he was probably involved in is slightly different than the corruption Trump was talking about. Which again, standard political fare but the crackdown on the story seems suspicious. If it had been Trump there is no way such a story would have been quietened down. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden#Investor_and_lobbyist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden#Investor_and_lobb...
      - magicalist 5y ago
        Making up a story about someone doesn't make it a story worth reporting until they disprove it, there should actually be some substance as table stakes. > In the grand scheme of things is looks like a pretty routine case of potential corruption, but that being associated with the president's son like a big deal If you're making the claim that simply being on a board of directors or part of a venture firm because of who you know or are related to is ipso facto corruption, unfortunately we're unlikely to ever rid ourselves of that short of random work assignments in some kind of scifi YA novel.
        roenxi 5y ago
        He's being subjected to a federal criminal investigation. There is a bit more there than "simply being on a board". It is a big story and deserves public investigation to find out what was going on. The world is currently teetering on the edge of a Russia-Ukraine * war spiralling in to a US-Russia war. It is materially interesting what business connections the US president has with (famous for being corrupt I might add) Ukraine. Especially if they involve cash for influence. These things matter. And, frankly, the reason these left-leaning outlets were suppressing the story was because to a lot of people the situation does meet the standard of ipso facto corruption. It seems clear that the people who were interacting with Hunter thought they were buying influence in the US political apparatus, probably the executive given his father's position; otherwise the decisions don't make a lot of sense. To a lot of people that basically is corruption. Although I doubt it is unusual in the US Congress if we poked around a little. EDIT, was Russia-US war. My bad.
shadowgovt 5y ago
> But I think its pretty creepy that a handful of large tech CEOs will be able to get together and prevent that from happening by shutting him off from every social media platform and biasing search results, even so far as censoring our private communications via FB messenger, email or similar chat apps. None of what you've described would prevent him from running. And in fact, thanks to Streisand Effect, much of it centers him in the public eye. You can't buy that kind of publicity.

by bko 5y ago

rootusrootus 5y ago

> get together That's probably the moment they could face regulation. Individually, it's their platform to choose what they want to host or not.

bko 5y ago
Do you think it was weird that when a damning article about a presidential candidate's son came out a few weeks before the election, every single media company and social network decided at the same exact time not to cover the story? Even so much as censoring the one paper that carried it and on private messages between people? Twitter, Facebook, NY Times, NPR and others. The former guy got banned on all the services all at once. Even tiktok which he was not on. Hell, even grindr banned him. There may not be direct coordination (maybe there is), but there's a signal and no one likes to make waves They all took a different direction about the "pee tape": https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/opinion/comey-book-steele-dossier.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/opinion/comey-book-steele... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/30/magazine/nothing-proves-you-right-like-getting-it-on-tape.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/30/magazine/nothing-proves-y... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/15/business/media/spooked-private-spies-news-media.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/15/business/media/spooked-pr... For more: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anytimes.com+trump+pee+tape https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anytimes.com+trump+pee...
- maccam94 5y ago
  No, it's not weird at all that the mainstream media wouldn't publish such a story without multiple sources right before an election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspira...
  - roenxi 5y ago
    Seems a bit weird, there is quite a story there [0]. In the grand scheme of things is looks like a pretty routine case of potential corruption, but that being associated with the president's son like a big deal. Vigorously suppressing the story was a pretty suspect move. The complaint seems to be that the corruption he was probably involved in is slightly different than the corruption Trump was talking about. Which again, standard political fare but the crackdown on the story seems suspicious. If it had been Trump there is no way such a story would have been quietened down. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden#Investor_and_lobbyist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden#Investor_and_lobb...
    - magicalist 5y ago
      Making up a story about someone doesn't make it a story worth reporting until they disprove it, there should actually be some substance as table stakes. > In the grand scheme of things is looks like a pretty routine case of potential corruption, but that being associated with the president's son like a big deal If you're making the claim that simply being on a board of directors or part of a venture firm because of who you know or are related to is ipso facto corruption, unfortunately we're unlikely to ever rid ourselves of that short of random work assignments in some kind of scifi YA novel.
      - roenxi 5y ago
        He's being subjected to a federal criminal investigation. There is a bit more there than "simply being on a board". It is a big story and deserves public investigation to find out what was going on. The world is currently teetering on the edge of a Russia-Ukraine * war spiralling in to a US-Russia war. It is materially interesting what business connections the US president has with (famous for being corrupt I might add) Ukraine. Especially if they involve cash for influence. These things matter. And, frankly, the reason these left-leaning outlets were suppressing the story was because to a lot of people the situation does meet the standard of ipso facto corruption. It seems clear that the people who were interacting with Hunter thought they were buying influence in the US political apparatus, probably the executive given his father's position; otherwise the decisions don't make a lot of sense. To a lot of people that basically is corruption. Although I doubt it is unusual in the US Congress if we poked around a little. EDIT, was Russia-US war. My bad.

shadowgovt 5y ago

> But I think its pretty creepy that a handful of large tech CEOs will be able to get together and prevent that from happening by shutting him off from every social media platform and biasing search results, even so far as censoring our private communications via FB messenger, email or similar chat apps. None of what you've described would prevent him from running. And in fact, thanks to Streisand Effect, much of it centers him in the public eye. You can't buy that kind of publicity.