5 ms·

The efforts of foreign governments to misinform and deceive the American public are tiny compared to the domestic efforts.

laidoffamazon 3y ago
You understand foreign interests moulding American policy are inherently worse than domestic ones, yes? There's a reason why we ban foreign donations to political candidates and why we require lobbyists of foreign interests to register.
- silverquiet 3y ago
  I think foreign and domestic are fuzzier than people imagine. Lots of companies are nominally American, but when it comes time to pay taxes, all of a sudden a lot of their revenue is really happening in another country.
  - laidoffamazon 3y ago
    I also don't think candidates should accept money from Apple's corporate PAC either if that's your question.
  - rchaud 3y ago
    That's why Halliburton is based in Dubai, to escape the claws of the taxman. VP (and former Halliburton CEO) Dick Cheney awarded them those Iraq contracts fair and square!
- rayiner 3y ago
  Trans-national corporations like Facebook are not meaningfully domestic.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    You'll say that even after the USG breaks one up.
    - rayiner 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - tptacek 3y ago
        This seems more like fanfiction than punditry. I don't think you have many examples of major companies that the DOJ has lit into where the founders simply reincorporated and continued defying the USG.
        leereeves 3y ago
        What examples of major companies that the DOJ has lit into? AFAIK, the last company they broke up was AT&T, 40 years ago.
        tptacek 3y ago
        Microsoft is the obvious example. The DOJ didn't break them up, but they ended up operating under a consent decree that significantly impacted them over the 2000s and 2010s. I'm aware (through the grapevine) of straightforward product decisions Google would have but didn't make for fear of ending up in the same position. Keep in mind the argument I'm responding to here: the idea that large US corporations are essentially insulated from US law by dint of being multinational. It's not enough to claim that the Microsoft case didn't break up or hobble Microsoft. By Rayiner's logic, Microsoft should have simply reincorporated in Ireland or Belize or something and continued its domination of computing. They did not. They didn't because Rayiner's argument is wrong.
        leereeves 3y ago
        I haven't seen anyone argue that "large US corporations are essentially insulated from US law by dint of being multinational". Rayiner claimed merely that: > the US only has jurisdiction over these companies to the extent that it’s a big market. But in that sense domestic companies aren’t any different from foreign ones with a large US presence. Surely you'd agree that large US corporations are not meaningfully European, and yet they are also subject to EU law. That's how we ended up with cookie warnings on everything and the current fight over alternative app stores on iPhones. In particular, the latter example is the EU enforcing a version of antitrust law on US companies. That shows that "[EU] domestic companies aren’t any different from foreign ones with a large [EU] presence." I can't think of an example of it happening the other way around, but I think that's mostly because US law is much more permissive than EU law. --- Edit because I'm "posting too fast": This didn't refer to "enforces US antitrust law". It referred to "USG breaks one up". That hasn't happened in so long we have no idea what a modern multinational corporation might do in response. I agree "will" overstates the claim.
  - rnd0 3y ago
    This is a point that cannot possibly be emphasized enough.
  - rchaud 3y ago
    Don't forget the old generation: Halliburton, Bechtel, Raytheon etc.
- rchaud 3y ago
  > You understand foreign interests moulding American policy are inherently worse than domestic ones, yes? Inherently worse? Domestic voices are what shattered American unions (and thereby the middle class), funding for schools and the export of millions of American jobs offshore for the benefit of the shareholder. What could a foreign interest even say to screw up American politics further? Push more AI image memes of Jesus guiding Trump's hand? Show Biden with snake eyes and a Pride flag?
bitshiftfaced 3y ago
Once again, a pro-Chinese interest comment tops the China-related Hacker News thread. You guys are really good at your jobs. (Note: I'm not implying that the above post or poster is suspicious, only that is the fact that these pro-China hot takes regularly get up voted to the top (e.g. the recent TikTok threads.)
- pseudocomposer 3y ago
  What was pro-China about the comment you responded to exactly? It was anti-multinational-corporation, for sure. But it literally put China in the same category as those corporations. I’m not that your post is suspicious; I’m saying outright that you are either a CIA/corporate spook or being manipulated by them. Any criticism of the companies that have dismantled American unions, healthcare, education, childcare, elder care, and more, for the sake of shareholder profits, seems to be unjustifiably labeled “pro-China” or “terrorist” or some other label by some anonymous person who hasn’t really contributed anything to the community otherwise.
  - rightbyte 3y ago
    You need to pretend you are playing Civ III. The implied reason is that it is bad for "player A" to not be able to fool their subjects, while it is good for "player B" that "player A" can't. Thus pro- or anti- A or B. No universiality or like philosophic morality reasoning at all involved. Just silly reductionism.
    - leereeves 3y ago
      > The implied reason is that it is bad for "player A" to not be able to fool their subjects, while it is good for "player B" that "player A" can't. That was essentially the response after the most impactful example of Russian interference: when Russian hackers leaked DNC emails proving collusion against Sanders by the DNC and the Clinton campaign. The Democrats deflected by blaming Russia for exposing the truth. Many people argued that it was unfair that only DNC emails were leaked. We could fairly reduce the DNC's defense to: it is bad for "player A" (the DNC) to not be able to fool their subjects, while it is good for "player B" (Trump and Russia) that "player A" can't. The DNC even doubled down by suing Trump and others, as well as Russia, over the leaks. The lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice because > The judge said the other defendants [Trump, Wikileaks, and others] "did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place" and were therefore within the law in publishing the information. He also said that the DNC's argument was "entirely divorced from the facts" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak#Civil_DNC_lawsuit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Commi...
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
How are you able to make such a claim when foreign influence is rarely reported and takes the form of social media campaigns? Cite a source please.

laidoffamazon 3y ago

You understand foreign interests moulding American policy are inherently worse than domestic ones, yes? There's a reason why we ban foreign donations to political candidates and why we require lobbyists of foreign interests to register.

silverquiet 3y ago
I think foreign and domestic are fuzzier than people imagine. Lots of companies are nominally American, but when it comes time to pay taxes, all of a sudden a lot of their revenue is really happening in another country.
- laidoffamazon 3y ago
  I also don't think candidates should accept money from Apple's corporate PAC either if that's your question.
- rchaud 3y ago
  That's why Halliburton is based in Dubai, to escape the claws of the taxman. VP (and former Halliburton CEO) Dick Cheney awarded them those Iraq contracts fair and square!
rayiner 3y ago
Trans-national corporations like Facebook are not meaningfully domestic.
- tptacek 3y ago
  You'll say that even after the USG breaks one up.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - tptacek 3y ago
      This seems more like fanfiction than punditry. I don't think you have many examples of major companies that the DOJ has lit into where the founders simply reincorporated and continued defying the USG.
      - leereeves 3y ago
        What examples of major companies that the DOJ has lit into? AFAIK, the last company they broke up was AT&T, 40 years ago.
        tptacek 3y ago
        Microsoft is the obvious example. The DOJ didn't break them up, but they ended up operating under a consent decree that significantly impacted them over the 2000s and 2010s. I'm aware (through the grapevine) of straightforward product decisions Google would have but didn't make for fear of ending up in the same position. Keep in mind the argument I'm responding to here: the idea that large US corporations are essentially insulated from US law by dint of being multinational. It's not enough to claim that the Microsoft case didn't break up or hobble Microsoft. By Rayiner's logic, Microsoft should have simply reincorporated in Ireland or Belize or something and continued its domination of computing. They did not. They didn't because Rayiner's argument is wrong.
        leereeves 3y ago
        I haven't seen anyone argue that "large US corporations are essentially insulated from US law by dint of being multinational". Rayiner claimed merely that: > the US only has jurisdiction over these companies to the extent that it’s a big market. But in that sense domestic companies aren’t any different from foreign ones with a large US presence. Surely you'd agree that large US corporations are not meaningfully European, and yet they are also subject to EU law. That's how we ended up with cookie warnings on everything and the current fight over alternative app stores on iPhones. In particular, the latter example is the EU enforcing a version of antitrust law on US companies. That shows that "[EU] domestic companies aren’t any different from foreign ones with a large [EU] presence." I can't think of an example of it happening the other way around, but I think that's mostly because US law is much more permissive than EU law. --- Edit because I'm "posting too fast": This didn't refer to "enforces US antitrust law". It referred to "USG breaks one up". That hasn't happened in so long we have no idea what a modern multinational corporation might do in response. I agree "will" overstates the claim.
- rnd0 3y ago
  This is a point that cannot possibly be emphasized enough.
- rchaud 3y ago
  Don't forget the old generation: Halliburton, Bechtel, Raytheon etc.
rchaud 3y ago
> You understand foreign interests moulding American policy are inherently worse than domestic ones, yes? Inherently worse? Domestic voices are what shattered American unions (and thereby the middle class), funding for schools and the export of millions of American jobs offshore for the benefit of the shareholder. What could a foreign interest even say to screw up American politics further? Push more AI image memes of Jesus guiding Trump's hand? Show Biden with snake eyes and a Pride flag?

bitshiftfaced 3y ago

Once again, a pro-Chinese interest comment tops the China-related Hacker News thread. You guys are really good at your jobs. (Note: I'm not implying that the above post or poster is suspicious, only that is the fact that these pro-China hot takes regularly get up voted to the top (e.g. the recent TikTok threads.)

pseudocomposer 3y ago
What was pro-China about the comment you responded to exactly? It was anti-multinational-corporation, for sure. But it literally put China in the same category as those corporations. I’m not that your post is suspicious; I’m saying outright that you are either a CIA/corporate spook or being manipulated by them. Any criticism of the companies that have dismantled American unions, healthcare, education, childcare, elder care, and more, for the sake of shareholder profits, seems to be unjustifiably labeled “pro-China” or “terrorist” or some other label by some anonymous person who hasn’t really contributed anything to the community otherwise.
- rightbyte 3y ago
  You need to pretend you are playing Civ III. The implied reason is that it is bad for "player A" to not be able to fool their subjects, while it is good for "player B" that "player A" can't. Thus pro- or anti- A or B. No universiality or like philosophic morality reasoning at all involved. Just silly reductionism.
  - leereeves 3y ago
    > The implied reason is that it is bad for "player A" to not be able to fool their subjects, while it is good for "player B" that "player A" can't. That was essentially the response after the most impactful example of Russian interference: when Russian hackers leaked DNC emails proving collusion against Sanders by the DNC and the Clinton campaign. The Democrats deflected by blaming Russia for exposing the truth. Many people argued that it was unfair that only DNC emails were leaked. We could fairly reduce the DNC's defense to: it is bad for "player A" (the DNC) to not be able to fool their subjects, while it is good for "player B" (Trump and Russia) that "player A" can't. The DNC even doubled down by suing Trump and others, as well as Russia, over the leaks. The lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice because > The judge said the other defendants [Trump, Wikileaks, and others] "did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place" and were therefore within the law in publishing the information. He also said that the DNC's argument was "entirely divorced from the facts" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak#Civil_DNC_lawsuit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Commi...

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

How are you able to make such a claim when foreign influence is rarely reported and takes the form of social media campaigns? Cite a source please.