3 ms·
Sure. But that wasn't the intent of the article. Part of being an elected official should be divesting yourself of conflicts of interest, but that isn't US law
by meowfly 3y ago
Sure. But that wasn't the intent of the article.
Part of being an elected official should be divesting yourself of conflicts of interest, but that isn't US law.
These are blue chip stocks and a large part of the S&P 500. You could write this same article about virtually any business legislation.
- tocs3 3y agoHow is it not the intent of the article? > Part of being an elected official should be divesting yourself of conflicts of interest, but that isn't US law. I completely agree. > These are blue chip stocks and a large part of the S&P 500. You could write this same article about virtually any business legislation. Yes, You could write this same article about smaller stocks or privately held endeavors. I thought this is the point of the story, just involving one example.
- meowfly 3y agoYou get below the fold before there is any indication this is normal. The article is basically here is this analysis showing Congress has a conflict of interest with tiktok legislation. But it's really a dog bites man story that Congress enriches themselves in office by not addressing their own conflict of interest. We are going to see lots of PR disguised as journalism from Byte Dance (Yass, Sequoia) and US Tech companies. Moreover, we will see lots US/China propaganda disguised as journalism. My cynical view is Gizmodo is taking this issue and framing it as TikTok specific, to carry someone else's water.