6 ms·

So there are 3 ways the government could influence Big Tech: 1. Infiltration. An agent or asset could be in a position of power to enact desired policies and c

by jmyeet 5y ago

So there are 3 ways the government could influence Big Tech: 1. Infiltration. An agent or asset could be in a position of power to enact desired policies and changes, provide a backdoor or whatever; 2. Jurisdiction. The platform falls under US jurisdiction so is subject to various forms of law enforcement, secret or otherwise. National Security Letters, FISA warrants, pen registers, that sort of thing; and 3. Propaganda. US companies reflect the cultural and political values of their founders, board and management as will as the will of stockholders. For some issues there is a political divide but for many issues there isn't, most notably when it comes to US foreign policy where Democrats and Republicans are basically indistinguishable. The prevailing foreign policy view is that the US is good and a benign hegemony and a civilizing and democratizing force. The current foreign policy bent also favours interventionism and has since World War Two. You see this at the huge backlash you get, even here among relatively educated and informed commenters, when you dare to suggest that the US bears some responsibility for Ukraine's predicament even though Russia is of course wholly responsible for an unjustifiable invasion. It's a real lesson in the power of US propaganda and how ingrained the benign hegemony meme (and it is a meme) is. My theory is the first 2 points I listed above don't matter. They're of almost no importance. What really matters is the ability of the US media (and I include social media companies in this umbrella) to project US propaganda and to normalize the US-centric view of the world.

giraffe_lady 5y ago
This friend speaks my mind.
throwaway412112 5y ago
What about the opposite direction of influence? Its much more interesting i think because in the end, its a game of who remains in power, the public domain (government, theoretically) or the private domain (large Corp). The Chinese CP decived to crack down on to-big-to-fail, where as we in the west ...
syrrim 5y ago
To say that the US is in any way responsible for Ukraine is to deny ukraine agency. They are caught between a lion and a bear. They could reject the aid of the lion, but that would throw them into the hands of the bear. They choose to accept US help in their defense, but that makes them vulnerable to US invasion. This is a choice they made, and they bare the consequences. The US in offering that help might have sought to anger russia, but they left it to the ukrainians to decide whether to follow through. Fundamentally, russia had no interest in allowing ukraine to be an independent country. US aid forestalled an invasion, and made the ultimate invasion a fairer fight, but it wasn't the cause of it.
- curuinor 5y ago
  surely america's the eagle, and the brits are lions? heraldry is ancient and the US has got some, surprisingly enough
  - jimmygrapes 5y ago
    I think Russia has more claim to the eagle for heraldry purposes, although maybe two-headed eagles don't count as the same species.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  > To say that the US is in any way responsible for Ukraine is to deny ukraine agency. They are caught between a lion and a bear. But somehow you're excusing the lion.
  - spaced-out 5y ago
    Because, in this instance, the lion is not the one that launched an invasion. Particularly egregious, launching a pre-emptive war based on a flimsy premise of what Ukraine might do in the future.
- jmyeet 5y ago
  > To say that the US is in any way responsible for Ukraine is to deny ukraine agency No, it doesn't. This war has highlighted just how simplistic people are in that someone has to be the bad guy and someone has to be the good guy (hint: the US is always the good guy). Any suggestion that more than one party can bear responsibility or blame invites histrionics about victim-blaming. The US friend zoned Ukraine, basically. The US knew it was never going to happen. Sure, Ukraine should figure that out (which they didn't seem to) but there's enough blame to go around.
mikevm 5y ago
> You see this at the huge backlash you get, even here among relatively educated and informed commenters, when you dare to suggest that the US bears some responsibility for Ukraine's predicament even though Russia is of course wholly responsible for an unjustifiable invasion. Here's the thing, the people who keep saying that US bears responsibility for Ukraine's predicament are wrong. I'm Russian so I follow various sources (both Russian and Ukrainian) in the original languages. Putin has had his eyes on Ukraine at least since he came into power 20 years ago. In 2014 Igor Girkin (among others) was sent clandestinely to take over Crimea and start the war in the Donbas. Girkin is a monarchist and believes in "the Greater Russia". He believes that Russians and Ukrainians are the same people (an opinion Putin shares and has publicly proclaimed before the war). The FSB has a whole department (the 5th service) devoted to subversion of Ukraine, including payment/bribes of billions of dollars to various gov't and media officials (one of whom, Viktor Medvedchuk, was captured by the SBU recently while attempting to flee house arrest). Blaming this conflict on NATO and the US is part of Kremlin propaganda, including their "de-nazification" claims. If anything, this conflict has shown just how important NATO is in keeping people like Putin in check, as he would've gladly continued to the Baltic states and maybe others if his Ukrainian campaign succeeded (in fact, some Russian politicians have publicly stated this on national Russian TV recently).
- jmyeet 5y ago
  We can agree the whole "denazification" argument is complete BS. That's propaganda for domestic consumption. As for Putin having eyes on Ukraine, let me argue it this way: NATO was never going to allow Ukraine to join. Germany, in particular, was always going to veto it. So even if you think that Putin had his eyes on Ukraine, NATO was never going to be a solution. So what do you do? You get Ukraine to adopt a policy of neutrality similar to Finland, Sweden or Switzerland. You build your entire military around being a defensive army to make the cost of invasion so high as to dissuade anyone from trying. To be fair, Ukraine's military has exceeded all expectations here but the invasion was (IMHO) always doomed (at least for the entire country). It's simply too big and too populated. Russia simply can't maintain control of it. Russia may well have invaded anyway but then we're in exactly the same situation we are now so what have we lost?
Mikeb85 5y ago
> You see this at the huge backlash you get, even here among relatively educated and informed commenters, when you dare to suggest that the US bears some responsibility for Ukraine's predicament even though Russia is of course wholly responsible for an unjustifiable invasion. Only 1 country is killing Ukrainians: Russia. There's no US troops massacring and raping Ukrainians... The only thing the US is responsible for is that they could have maybe threatened Russia enough to not invade. Anyhow, I've been sceptical of US hegemony at times however one thing is clear: the world is far better with the US as the dominant power than it would be if Russia or China were dominant. At least the US allows its citizens and those of its 'protectorates' (or whatever you want to call US allies/countries it protects) a large degree of personal freedom.
- rufusroflpunch 5y ago
  This viewpoint is simplistic to the point of absurdity.
  - Mikeb85 5y ago
    And your comment is useless and adds nothing.
  - Supermancho 5y ago
    I assume you are refrring to the laughable statement: > The only thing the US is responsible for is that they could have maybe threatened Russia enough to not invade. as if that wasnt a factor (by proxy via NATO) initiating Russian aggression.
    - Mikeb85 5y ago
      > as if that wasnt a factor (by proxy via NATO) initiating Russian aggression. This is basically the "she wore a short dress" defense... The only country that initiated Russian aggression is Russia.
      - Supermancho 5y ago
ARandomerDude 5y ago
4. Coercion and Corruption. The government tells Big Tech "You're going to do $GOVERNMENT_THING, as well as fund our next campaigns. Cooperate and we'll make you even more wealthy and powerful; refuse and we'll bury you." This is a nefarious combination of all 3 of your points, and I suspect the most common.
car_analogy 5y ago
> The prevailing foreign policy view is that the US is good and a benign hegemony and a civilizing and democratizing force. No, that's just how it's sold to the public. E.g. I guarantee nobody had civilizing and democratizing in mind when the US occupying force in Iraq issued order 81: the people in Iraq are now prohibited from saving newly designed seeds (not the traditional ones) and may only plant seeds for their food from licensed, authorized U.S. distributors. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Orders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Orders

by jmyeet 5y ago

giraffe_lady 5y ago

This friend speaks my mind.

throwaway412112 5y ago

What about the opposite direction of influence? Its much more interesting i think because in the end, its a game of who remains in power, the public domain (government, theoretically) or the private domain (large Corp). The Chinese CP decived to crack down on to-big-to-fail, where as we in the west ...

syrrim 5y ago

To say that the US is in any way responsible for Ukraine is to deny ukraine agency. They are caught between a lion and a bear. They could reject the aid of the lion, but that would throw them into the hands of the bear. They choose to accept US help in their defense, but that makes them vulnerable to US invasion. This is a choice they made, and they bare the consequences. The US in offering that help might have sought to anger russia, but they left it to the ukrainians to decide whether to follow through. Fundamentally, russia had no interest in allowing ukraine to be an independent country. US aid forestalled an invasion, and made the ultimate invasion a fairer fight, but it wasn't the cause of it.

curuinor 5y ago
surely america's the eagle, and the brits are lions? heraldry is ancient and the US has got some, surprisingly enough
- jimmygrapes 5y ago
  I think Russia has more claim to the eagle for heraldry purposes, although maybe two-headed eagles don't count as the same species.
pessimizer 5y ago
> To say that the US is in any way responsible for Ukraine is to deny ukraine agency. They are caught between a lion and a bear. But somehow you're excusing the lion.
- spaced-out 5y ago
  Because, in this instance, the lion is not the one that launched an invasion. Particularly egregious, launching a pre-emptive war based on a flimsy premise of what Ukraine might do in the future.
jmyeet 5y ago
> To say that the US is in any way responsible for Ukraine is to deny ukraine agency No, it doesn't. This war has highlighted just how simplistic people are in that someone has to be the bad guy and someone has to be the good guy (hint: the US is always the good guy). Any suggestion that more than one party can bear responsibility or blame invites histrionics about victim-blaming. The US friend zoned Ukraine, basically. The US knew it was never going to happen. Sure, Ukraine should figure that out (which they didn't seem to) but there's enough blame to go around.

mikevm 5y ago

> You see this at the huge backlash you get, even here among relatively educated and informed commenters, when you dare to suggest that the US bears some responsibility for Ukraine's predicament even though Russia is of course wholly responsible for an unjustifiable invasion. Here's the thing, the people who keep saying that US bears responsibility for Ukraine's predicament are wrong. I'm Russian so I follow various sources (both Russian and Ukrainian) in the original languages. Putin has had his eyes on Ukraine at least since he came into power 20 years ago. In 2014 Igor Girkin (among others) was sent clandestinely to take over Crimea and start the war in the Donbas. Girkin is a monarchist and believes in "the Greater Russia". He believes that Russians and Ukrainians are the same people (an opinion Putin shares and has publicly proclaimed before the war). The FSB has a whole department (the 5th service) devoted to subversion of Ukraine, including payment/bribes of billions of dollars to various gov't and media officials (one of whom, Viktor Medvedchuk, was captured by the SBU recently while attempting to flee house arrest). Blaming this conflict on NATO and the US is part of Kremlin propaganda, including their "de-nazification" claims. If anything, this conflict has shown just how important NATO is in keeping people like Putin in check, as he would've gladly continued to the Baltic states and maybe others if his Ukrainian campaign succeeded (in fact, some Russian politicians have publicly stated this on national Russian TV recently).

jmyeet 5y ago
We can agree the whole "denazification" argument is complete BS. That's propaganda for domestic consumption. As for Putin having eyes on Ukraine, let me argue it this way: NATO was never going to allow Ukraine to join. Germany, in particular, was always going to veto it. So even if you think that Putin had his eyes on Ukraine, NATO was never going to be a solution. So what do you do? You get Ukraine to adopt a policy of neutrality similar to Finland, Sweden or Switzerland. You build your entire military around being a defensive army to make the cost of invasion so high as to dissuade anyone from trying. To be fair, Ukraine's military has exceeded all expectations here but the invasion was (IMHO) always doomed (at least for the entire country). It's simply too big and too populated. Russia simply can't maintain control of it. Russia may well have invaded anyway but then we're in exactly the same situation we are now so what have we lost?

Mikeb85 5y ago

rufusroflpunch 5y ago
This viewpoint is simplistic to the point of absurdity.
- Mikeb85 5y ago
  And your comment is useless and adds nothing.
- Supermancho 5y ago
  I assume you are refrring to the laughable statement: > The only thing the US is responsible for is that they could have maybe threatened Russia enough to not invade. as if that wasnt a factor (by proxy via NATO) initiating Russian aggression.
  - Mikeb85 5y ago
    > as if that wasnt a factor (by proxy via NATO) initiating Russian aggression. This is basically the "she wore a short dress" defense... The only country that initiated Russian aggression is Russia.
    - Supermancho 5y ago

ARandomerDude 5y ago

4. Coercion and Corruption. The government tells Big Tech "You're going to do $GOVERNMENT_THING, as well as fund our next campaigns. Cooperate and we'll make you even more wealthy and powerful; refuse and we'll bury you." This is a nefarious combination of all 3 of your points, and I suspect the most common.

car_analogy 5y ago

> The prevailing foreign policy view is that the US is good and a benign hegemony and a civilizing and democratizing force. No, that's just how it's sold to the public. E.g. I guarantee nobody had civilizing and democratizing in mind when the US occupying force in Iraq issued order 81: the people in Iraq are now prohibited from saving newly designed seeds (not the traditional ones) and may only plant seeds for their food from licensed, authorized U.S. distributors. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Orders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Orders