3 ms·
It's very powerful individuals having a meeting, and what they decide, in secret, can have wide-ranging repercussions for people who lack their power—which is a
by Veen 3y ago
It's very powerful individuals having a meeting, and what they decide, in secret, can have wide-ranging repercussions for people who lack their power—which is almost everybody else. It is not "conspiracy theory bullshit" to be highly skeptical of the motives of these individuals and impact of such meetings.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y agoThen if they have something to report on, report on it. As you point out, I think it's 100% fine, and indeed advisable, to be skeptical of people's motives. But what do you suggest, prohibiting free association of individuals?
- 23B1 3y agoI think that public disclosure of publicly-traded companies is important so that shareholders can make informed decisions – so I don’t see why we wouldn’t require something similar out of elected leaders. And it’s not about prohibiting people from meeting, its about transparency in who and how they are influenced when in positions of public trust.
- mbgerring 3y agoThis is reporting — that this meeting is taking place, but the agenda of that meeting can’t be known to the public, even though we will almost certainly be affected by the outcome, is important news.