3 ms·

Of course, currying favor with the new administration. This has always been the case, of course, but it feels much more out in the open now. Where does the sli

Of course, currying favor with the new administration. This has always been the case, of course, but it feels much more out in the open now. Where does the slippery slope end? Go down this road too far and these tech companies will end up like their counterparts in China (Baidu, Tencent, Alibaba, etc.) who do the autocratic government's bidding in controlling the population (by controlling information) for fear of retribution to their bottom line.

nazgulnarsil 2y ago
Already
scarab92 2y ago
I suspect individuals capable of being tech leaders are also capable of holding less partisan opinions. I suspect most don’t really see themselves as a Democrat or a Republican, but individuals with their own principals, which makes it easier to see where there is alignment with each side.
Craighead 2y ago
[dead]
jhanschoo 2y ago
> where does this slippery slope end? [...] who do the autocratic government's bidding in controlling the population (by controlling information) for fear of retribution to their bottom line. The people have exercised power and voted for Trump. Corporations currying favor with the currently fashionable leader is what you should want, because the currently fashionable leader represents the interests of the people, and this is a check that the people have over corporations. You theoretically want to go all the way down this slippery slope for as long as the people control their government; the people are sovereign, and invest their power in an elected government; that in turn invest in corporations the freedoms that they need to maximize prosperity. Or is something wrong with the institutions today that despite Trump winning both in terms electorally and the popular vote, this is somehow undemocratic? I would like for you to examine why a dynamic that is supposed to be democratic has led you to consider that it is aligned with autocracy (I think you mean authoritarian here); such an exercise will help with the quality of the discussion we are having.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  Trump tried to overturn the results of an election. That should never happen in our democracy and he should never have been allowed to run for president. There's not even any point in debating policies. It's not about Republican vs Democrat, it's about democracy vs authoritarianism, which he tried to do 4 years ago and was only stopped by Pence and the Georgia Sec of State. So yes, very undemocratic. I did mean autocracy -- that's what China has become (once again) under Xi.
  - jhanschoo 2y ago
    No matter what Trump tried to do, I think that winning the popular vote and election is the highest form of democratic legitimacy. Xi was not elected by the people, and the party's election of their head of party was not fair (there is coercion); that's why some people say that he is an autocrat. A government cannot be autocratic when its head-of-state is decided by an election that is quite representative. If the US were an autocratic government, the election would be meaningless, and Biden would be naming his successor. Which is not presently the case. The best argument I can give for your statement is that the present US population democratically chooses as their head-of-state a person who would like the government to be more autocratic, or have authoritarian personalities, or are strongmen; between Chávez, Marcos, Duterte, Modi, and Bolsonaro, among others, you will be able to find instances where strongmen with great popular support are elected in sufficiently fair and free elections. I still consider they reflect the will of the people, even as some regard that the people suffer for that choice. In which case, my original point still stands; I still think you want companies to want to cooperate with governmental leadership in a well-functioning democracy, and you have misidentified where dysfunction lies (if there is dysfunction) by thinking that for things to be arranged otherwise would be democratic.
    - insane_dreamer 2y ago
      you're really missing the point. Having an autocratic president weakens the foundations of democracy. If Trump is okay reversing a free and fair election, then he is okay with acting in ways that are completely undemocratic, whether those who voted for him (less than 50% of voters, by the way), agree or not. So yes, a government that is elected can absolutely become autocratic if its leader is able to undermine the pinnings of democracy and does not encounter sufficient opposition. (Hitler came to power as the result of elections too.) You don't seem to have a problem with autocracy, but I do. I've lived in countries with those leaders - and Trump is cut from the same cloth. Enjoy it while it lasts.
tim333 2y ago
It's different this time because Musk helped get Trump elected and is there as First Buddy and they are scared he'll use that to advantage X and Xai etc to take over the market from them.

nazgulnarsil 2y ago

Already

scarab92 2y ago

I suspect individuals capable of being tech leaders are also capable of holding less partisan opinions. I suspect most don’t really see themselves as a Democrat or a Republican, but individuals with their own principals, which makes it easier to see where there is alignment with each side.

Craighead 2y ago

[dead]

jhanschoo 2y ago

> where does this slippery slope end? [...] who do the autocratic government's bidding in controlling the population (by controlling information) for fear of retribution to their bottom line. The people have exercised power and voted for Trump. Corporations currying favor with the currently fashionable leader is what you should want, because the currently fashionable leader represents the interests of the people, and this is a check that the people have over corporations. You theoretically want to go all the way down this slippery slope for as long as the people control their government; the people are sovereign, and invest their power in an elected government; that in turn invest in corporations the freedoms that they need to maximize prosperity. Or is something wrong with the institutions today that despite Trump winning both in terms electorally and the popular vote, this is somehow undemocratic? I would like for you to examine why a dynamic that is supposed to be democratic has led you to consider that it is aligned with autocracy (I think you mean authoritarian here); such an exercise will help with the quality of the discussion we are having.

insane_dreamer 2y ago
Trump tried to overturn the results of an election. That should never happen in our democracy and he should never have been allowed to run for president. There's not even any point in debating policies. It's not about Republican vs Democrat, it's about democracy vs authoritarianism, which he tried to do 4 years ago and was only stopped by Pence and the Georgia Sec of State. So yes, very undemocratic. I did mean autocracy -- that's what China has become (once again) under Xi.
- jhanschoo 2y ago
  No matter what Trump tried to do, I think that winning the popular vote and election is the highest form of democratic legitimacy. Xi was not elected by the people, and the party's election of their head of party was not fair (there is coercion); that's why some people say that he is an autocrat. A government cannot be autocratic when its head-of-state is decided by an election that is quite representative. If the US were an autocratic government, the election would be meaningless, and Biden would be naming his successor. Which is not presently the case. The best argument I can give for your statement is that the present US population democratically chooses as their head-of-state a person who would like the government to be more autocratic, or have authoritarian personalities, or are strongmen; between Chávez, Marcos, Duterte, Modi, and Bolsonaro, among others, you will be able to find instances where strongmen with great popular support are elected in sufficiently fair and free elections. I still consider they reflect the will of the people, even as some regard that the people suffer for that choice. In which case, my original point still stands; I still think you want companies to want to cooperate with governmental leadership in a well-functioning democracy, and you have misidentified where dysfunction lies (if there is dysfunction) by thinking that for things to be arranged otherwise would be democratic.
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    you're really missing the point. Having an autocratic president weakens the foundations of democracy. If Trump is okay reversing a free and fair election, then he is okay with acting in ways that are completely undemocratic, whether those who voted for him (less than 50% of voters, by the way), agree or not. So yes, a government that is elected can absolutely become autocratic if its leader is able to undermine the pinnings of democracy and does not encounter sufficient opposition. (Hitler came to power as the result of elections too.) You don't seem to have a problem with autocracy, but I do. I've lived in countries with those leaders - and Trump is cut from the same cloth. Enjoy it while it lasts.

tim333 2y ago

It's different this time because Musk helped get Trump elected and is there as First Buddy and they are scared he'll use that to advantage X and Xai etc to take over the market from them.