4 ms·

When speaker of the house benefits personally from big tech, why would she bite the hand that feeds her?

• 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  Are you insinuating that Nancy Pelosi's husband committed insider trading and got away with it? If that is true then he can also get away with shorting these big companies. If you know what the market will do ahead of time you can make money whether it goes up or down.
  • spywaregorilla 4y ago
    Investing in companies has a lot more plausible deniability than shorting them. I don't know the specifics of her husband's case or what he does. Most funds have fairly specific strategies laid out though. It would raise a lot of eyebrows to do something wildly different.
  • AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
• Mtinie 4y ago
  She has no compelling reason to, nor do her peers across the political spectrum. This type of regulation has to be one of the more challenging to implement. Global social engagement means that any attempt to adjust the status quo means pissed off constituencies. For every person who sees the legitimate societal dangers posed by unconstrained growth of Tech’s influence, far more view that same growth as a positive and will actively resist curbing their personal freedoms. Soma is soma, whether it’s provided physically or digitally.
• Spivak 4y ago
  You’re like one step away from getting to the heart of it. US regulators have a golden calf they need to not kill because these companies make fistfuls of money, provide stable gainful employment to a few million workers, and give the US broad global influence. It’s way bigger than one representative.