11 ms·

It has completely fallen apart to any outside observer. It will take decades, possibly a generational timescale to repair. The damage is already irreversible o

It has completely fallen apart to any outside observer. It will take decades, possibly a generational timescale to repair. The damage is already irreversible on any near to medium term timescale - how bad it gets on an absolute scale is the only thing left to speculate.

heresie-dabord 2y ago
> decades, possibly a generational timescale to repair. It will easily take a generation just for people to find solidarity and courage again. Progress takes real sacrifice. People died fighting for basic dignity and rights. The anti-slavery movement in the US fought monied interests for centuries. It took real sacrifice for the labour movement to gain rights such as voting, education, housing, health care in the face of deadly opposition from the rich and their legislative puppets. It just takes a moment of complaceny on the part of progressive-minded people for the rich and their legislative puppets to undo the foundations of democracy.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  The risk of undoing progress so quickly is only possible after nearly a century spent centralizing the very authority that makes a quick undo possible. The executive branch shouldn't have nearly as much authority as it does and anything we want to be difficult to be undone should be protected by law, with a legislative body needing something akin to a 2/3s vote to change it. Instead we have a massive, powerful executive branch and legislators that can wield way too much power with a simple majority.
  - cardamomo 2y ago
    In theory, that isn't too far from the system we have. The President was never meant to have so much authority, and Congress already requires a 2/3 majority in order to make certain kinds of decisions, including overruling a presidential veto.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Didn't congress change the rules a few years ago on only needing a simple majority for more things? I was living out if the country st the time and didn't keep up, I could be mistaken there.
      - cardamomo 2y ago
        There was some debate whether or not to remove the rule requiring a 60% vote to end filibusters in the Senate. Because this rule still stands, most laws cannot pass without 60 Senators' votes. Budget reconciliation bills, however, can be advanced with only a simple majority of the Senate. Though this is not a recent rules change, much recent legislation has gone through the reconciliation process to avoid the supermajority requirement.
        _heimdall 2y ago
        Thanks! That must be the debate I remember happening and thought they actually made the change.
  - deepsun 2y ago
    No, it's not only executive branch. People voted in Trump adorers to majority in both Senate and House of Representatives.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      If the voting public of a democracy fairly elected so many people to office like that, I don't really know what we can complain about. Democracy would have worked in that scenario, and society would just have bifurcated enough that the slight minority lost most power and very much disagrees with the direction. Congress does have to act pike adults though and do their job of keeping the executive branch in check. If they don't the system is just fundamentally broken and the only reasonable choice is to throw it out and start fresh.
      - wrs 2y ago
        The word “fairly” is doing a lot of work there. There has been a lot of success on one side to tilt things with redistricting and voter suppression since the 80s.
        bigfudge 2y ago
        Just wait till 2028!
        _heimdall 2y ago
        Redistricting and voter suppression are definitely a problem. If they were both done in a way that was technically legal though, we can't be too angry about it before we change the laws that allowed it in the first place. Fairness in the context of an election only means that it was done in accordance to the existing laws. Maybe equal access to voting needs to be on that list too, but I'd expect that to be covered by voting laws.
        wrs 2y ago
        The purpose of the laws should be to ensure fairness. Fairness is not defined by the law. Unless you consider it was fair for women not to be able to vote, when that was the law. There have been many attempts to fix districting laws, but of course those changes have to be approved by representatives elected under the previous laws. It has been difficult to challenge these in court because it’s hard to argue whether a districting is “fair”. There has been a little progress on challenging some districting based on a statistical argument that shows the one-party advantage resulting from the particular districting is extremely unlikely to be the result of chance.
  - scott_w 2y ago
    Under the constitution, the US federal government has far less power than, say the UK government does in comparison. Yet, if the other branches of government show no interest in constraining it, then it’ll expand rapidly. I actually wonder if the problem the USA has is that its system has no override function like the UK does under the Parliament Act 1918. I see a lot of frustration that Congress has been deadlocked for nearly 2 decades (mostly by Republicans) so it’s no surprise the average voter demands change and wants the executive branch to take all the power.
    - pyuser583 2y ago
      The UK's Constitution is the result of a literal war between the legislative and executive branches. The legislative branch won, and cut the King's head off.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      A weaker federal government was always our design though. Really until the last century, our federal government was extremely weak and limited in authority. It wasn't until around FDR that we started seeing a shift if power to the federal government, often specifically to the executive branch. The large executive branch has been growing since steadily since FDR though, that isn't a recent reaction to gridlock. There's a good argument that gridlock is a feature of our system meant to slow it down intentionally. We're seeing now how jarring it can be to have the government completely change source every 4 years, gridlock and bureaucracy help smooth that out. We could be making it worse by demanding gridlock be avoided through executive actions and similar.
      - scott_w 2y ago
        Compared to historic USA, perhaps, but compared to OTHER COUNTRIES, the US system has insane gridlock and, right now, a very unhappy public. What I’m pointing to is not that more power should shift to the executive but that it should be given to the legislature, and could happen in a way that reduces this gridlock. Compare to the UK’s Parliament Act, which allows the Commons to override the Lords if it passes the same legislation in two sessions. It means that overriding isn’t free (it takes 1-2 years of focused effort) but critical legislation can’t be blocked. Combined with strict timetables that force rejection of legislation that isn’t passed in its allotted time, you bypass the pocket veto, too. Compromise is preferred but, if the upper house refuses to play ball, the threat of ramming it through anyway always exists to keep it in check.
  - hackyhacky 2y ago
    > The executive branch shouldn't have nearly as much authority as it does and anything we want to be difficult to be undone should be protected by law It doesn't matter if rights are protected by law, if the executive branch has no intention to enforce that law. Right now the executive branch is plainly violating laws established by Congress, and there is no one to stop them.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      The legislative and judicial branches are both expected to hold the executive accountable if it breaks the law. If that doesn't happen our system is fundamentally broken, we might as well throw it out and start over.
      - xnx 2y ago
        Is there any democratic system that is safe from democratically voting to dissolve the democracy and replace it with whatever autocracy/kakistocracy/oligarchy we've got now?
        _heimdall 2y ago
        No, that's a fundamental risk built into democracy. If any minority group has the power to overrule a majority vote, regardless of what the vote is for, then you don't really have a democracy.
        vkou 2y ago
        No, every country is one election away from this shit-show. Which is why under no circumstances you should ever elect anyone who will send yours in that direction. Canadians, take note, the CPC only detached its lips from Trump's backside because they needed to come up for air. At minimum, don't elect people who staged failed coups. They and their supporters will not ever act like they are bound by law.
    - nradov 2y ago
      The executive branch has blatantly violated numerous laws but so far they have still obeyed court orders which explicitly required them to follow those laws. The real Constitutional crisis will come if they decide to openly defy a federal court order. I would also note that while the current Trump administration has broken federal laws at an accelerated rate, the previous Biden administration did much the same thing on a smaller scale. People here on HN frequently make excuses for Biden's illegal student loan forgiveness program because they liked the results but if we want to preserve the rule of law then it needs to apply to every program. In the long run allowing unchecked growth of executive branch power and the administrative state will be bad for everyone. https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-biden-student-loan-forgiveness-program/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-strikes-dow...
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    And sadly the Dems were all too willing to consolidate this power in the Executive because of expediency.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Both parties have consolidated power to the executive branch for decades, this isn't a one party problem.
      - throwaway48476 2y ago
        It started with Lincoln and was expanded by Wilson and FDR.
        _heimdall 2y ago
        That's fair, Lincoln did kick it off. I've always considered it more that Lincoln crested the precedent that was only really used layer by FDR, but maybe that's ignoring nuance of how powers were expanded between the two.
        throwaway48476 2y ago
        Before Lincoln states had much more power. Both Lincoln and Wilson curtailed civil liberties. Wilson created the income tax which gave the president a large source of income. FDR created the bureaucracy that spends the income tax money.
- giantg2 2y ago
  "for people to find solidarity" That's not going to happen with the way tech/algos are exacerbating the divide.
  - malfist 2y ago
    Which is increasingly looking intentional
    - giantg2 2y ago
      Nah, it's a by-product of giving people what they want to make money. This sort of issue has been building for a long time. It's based on abundance of resources and availability of choices. As we have more time and money to spend on things, we can make more independent choices and take positions on issues that we didnt even think about before. Essentially, the semi-homogeneous population slowly fragments into smaller and smaller factions that are not geographically constrained (thanks to tech).
    - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
      We've known it is intentional since Cambridge Analytica at the latest.
      - giantg2 2y ago
        That wasn't about creating a split but rather taking advantage of an existing split, right?
        HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
        Potato potato
  - soulofmischief 2y ago
    If you have engineering or product skills, now is the time to take a hard look in the mirror, inventory your interests and concerns, and figure out how to fight fire with fire. We need to be proliferating alternative, humanistic, empathetic software in the world and putting it into people's hands. It's easier than ever for us to independently build a wealth of defensive infrastructure for the common people.
- wat10000 2y ago
  The problem right now isn’t the rich. The problem is that half of the electorate is on board with this stuff. You can’t rally the people against this when half the population is in favor of it. I’m sure there’s a good argument that wealthy people and a broadening wealth divide are responsible for this, but it’s too late to attack that now. We need a huge shift in public sentiment if this is going to change now. Even if the outcome had been different in November. We’d still be in deep trouble. A lot less, but still a lot. The fundamental problem we have right now isn’t that Trump is President, it’s that about 50% of those who bother to vote think he’s worthy of it.
  - JKCalhoun 2y ago
    Don't think you can address the one while not dismantling the other. Otherwise you're lucky to be trading water.
    - wat10000 2y ago
      I think you need the populace on your side first, though. Otherwise how can you change anything if you have neither government nor a majority? Unfortunately, I don’t see any way to change the minds of the American populace. They’ll have to learn the hard lesson of where this stuff goes. The problem is that we all have to learn that lesson alongside them whether we need it or not.
      - JKCalhoun 2y ago
        I hate to say it, but you need a populist leader that blames everything on the wealthy.
  - naijaboiler 2y ago
    It’s still the wealthy, leaning on social issues to create a democratic majority
rhubarbtree 2y ago
What makes you think it will be repaired? I’ll go for America splinters into at least two countries.
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  For this to happen, the US population is probably too old on average, and too overweight. Civil wars and the like are usually based on youth bulges, as they need a lot of breathing bodies to fight it out. Preferrably slightly hungry bodies, as hungry people are easier to provoke into fighting.
  - apeescape 2y ago
    Who knows what the next American civil war would look like.
    - inglor_cz 2y ago
      Lots of destroyed keyboards?
      - rvnx 2y ago
        Stealth donations to unauthorized political parties through OnlyFans or meme coins.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      Despite all the 2nd Amendement talk, it mainly comes down to the military. The military have the tanks, the air support, the logistics, the surveilence net, the miscelaneous support equipment, and all the training to use everything. A split within the military, that gets real ugly real fast.
      - ty6853 2y ago
        I think any civil war would have a split within the military, because in your premise that they're using tanks and aircraft, some people are not going to want to bomb the place where their mother or child lives, not to mention the supply chain of all that fancy stuff relies on a somewhat functioning domestic society to make and deliver much of the underlying goodies and support.
cscurmudgeon 2y ago
To any neutral non European observer, this is what they may see 1. Europe propped up Russia despite Obama and Trump’s warnings before the war 2. Europe still buys more from Russia than they give Ukraine in financial aid 3. Europe is more friendly towards America’s rival China 4. Europe expects US to spend more protecting Europe than Europe
karparov 2y ago
It doesn't help that the tech sector is falling in line. Spearheaded by Musk who is still glorified my many in the industry, other tech giants are following suit. Meta, Google, Amazon, nobody dares challenging the new US order and is playing along. This is really where the HN crowd should realize how much they are involved in this. Tech was one of the bullwarks against right wing fascist takeover. Not anymore, they are playing along. It's going to be dark.
- LadyCailin 2y ago
  I never thought that. They have always just played along with society. When LGBT rights were fashionable, they were more than happy to jump on that bandwagon and rainbow wash everything for money. Which, is great, don’t get me wrong, but I never thought for one second it was because the leadership truly thought that was important deep down in their hearts (Tim Cook perhaps excepted, but even then not fully, as he still cares about business more than principals, though he has more to lose personally.)
  - karparov 2y ago
    Excellent point. Why would a move a certain crowd likes be out of principle and when the tide turned and a move in the opposite direction happens suddenly be just opportunism? The more realistic/neutral interpretation is that it's all just opportunism in either direction. Zuck is probably the best example.

heresie-dabord 2y ago

> decades, possibly a generational timescale to repair. It will easily take a generation just for people to find solidarity and courage again. Progress takes real sacrifice. People died fighting for basic dignity and rights. The anti-slavery movement in the US fought monied interests for centuries. It took real sacrifice for the labour movement to gain rights such as voting, education, housing, health care in the face of deadly opposition from the rich and their legislative puppets. It just takes a moment of complaceny on the part of progressive-minded people for the rich and their legislative puppets to undo the foundations of democracy.

_heimdall 2y ago
The risk of undoing progress so quickly is only possible after nearly a century spent centralizing the very authority that makes a quick undo possible. The executive branch shouldn't have nearly as much authority as it does and anything we want to be difficult to be undone should be protected by law, with a legislative body needing something akin to a 2/3s vote to change it. Instead we have a massive, powerful executive branch and legislators that can wield way too much power with a simple majority.
- cardamomo 2y ago
  In theory, that isn't too far from the system we have. The President was never meant to have so much authority, and Congress already requires a 2/3 majority in order to make certain kinds of decisions, including overruling a presidential veto.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Didn't congress change the rules a few years ago on only needing a simple majority for more things? I was living out if the country st the time and didn't keep up, I could be mistaken there.
    - cardamomo 2y ago
      There was some debate whether or not to remove the rule requiring a 60% vote to end filibusters in the Senate. Because this rule still stands, most laws cannot pass without 60 Senators' votes. Budget reconciliation bills, however, can be advanced with only a simple majority of the Senate. Though this is not a recent rules change, much recent legislation has gone through the reconciliation process to avoid the supermajority requirement.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        Thanks! That must be the debate I remember happening and thought they actually made the change.
- deepsun 2y ago
  No, it's not only executive branch. People voted in Trump adorers to majority in both Senate and House of Representatives.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    If the voting public of a democracy fairly elected so many people to office like that, I don't really know what we can complain about. Democracy would have worked in that scenario, and society would just have bifurcated enough that the slight minority lost most power and very much disagrees with the direction. Congress does have to act pike adults though and do their job of keeping the executive branch in check. If they don't the system is just fundamentally broken and the only reasonable choice is to throw it out and start fresh.
    - wrs 2y ago
      The word “fairly” is doing a lot of work there. There has been a lot of success on one side to tilt things with redistricting and voter suppression since the 80s.
      - bigfudge 2y ago
        Just wait till 2028!
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        Redistricting and voter suppression are definitely a problem. If they were both done in a way that was technically legal though, we can't be too angry about it before we change the laws that allowed it in the first place. Fairness in the context of an election only means that it was done in accordance to the existing laws. Maybe equal access to voting needs to be on that list too, but I'd expect that to be covered by voting laws.
        wrs 2y ago
        The purpose of the laws should be to ensure fairness. Fairness is not defined by the law. Unless you consider it was fair for women not to be able to vote, when that was the law. There have been many attempts to fix districting laws, but of course those changes have to be approved by representatives elected under the previous laws. It has been difficult to challenge these in court because it’s hard to argue whether a districting is “fair”. There has been a little progress on challenging some districting based on a statistical argument that shows the one-party advantage resulting from the particular districting is extremely unlikely to be the result of chance.
- scott_w 2y ago
  Under the constitution, the US federal government has far less power than, say the UK government does in comparison. Yet, if the other branches of government show no interest in constraining it, then it’ll expand rapidly. I actually wonder if the problem the USA has is that its system has no override function like the UK does under the Parliament Act 1918. I see a lot of frustration that Congress has been deadlocked for nearly 2 decades (mostly by Republicans) so it’s no surprise the average voter demands change and wants the executive branch to take all the power.
  - pyuser583 2y ago
    The UK's Constitution is the result of a literal war between the legislative and executive branches. The legislative branch won, and cut the King's head off.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    A weaker federal government was always our design though. Really until the last century, our federal government was extremely weak and limited in authority. It wasn't until around FDR that we started seeing a shift if power to the federal government, often specifically to the executive branch. The large executive branch has been growing since steadily since FDR though, that isn't a recent reaction to gridlock. There's a good argument that gridlock is a feature of our system meant to slow it down intentionally. We're seeing now how jarring it can be to have the government completely change source every 4 years, gridlock and bureaucracy help smooth that out. We could be making it worse by demanding gridlock be avoided through executive actions and similar.
    - scott_w 2y ago
      Compared to historic USA, perhaps, but compared to OTHER COUNTRIES, the US system has insane gridlock and, right now, a very unhappy public. What I’m pointing to is not that more power should shift to the executive but that it should be given to the legislature, and could happen in a way that reduces this gridlock. Compare to the UK’s Parliament Act, which allows the Commons to override the Lords if it passes the same legislation in two sessions. It means that overriding isn’t free (it takes 1-2 years of focused effort) but critical legislation can’t be blocked. Combined with strict timetables that force rejection of legislation that isn’t passed in its allotted time, you bypass the pocket veto, too. Compromise is preferred but, if the upper house refuses to play ball, the threat of ramming it through anyway always exists to keep it in check.
- hackyhacky 2y ago
  > The executive branch shouldn't have nearly as much authority as it does and anything we want to be difficult to be undone should be protected by law It doesn't matter if rights are protected by law, if the executive branch has no intention to enforce that law. Right now the executive branch is plainly violating laws established by Congress, and there is no one to stop them.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    The legislative and judicial branches are both expected to hold the executive accountable if it breaks the law. If that doesn't happen our system is fundamentally broken, we might as well throw it out and start over.
    - xnx 2y ago
      Is there any democratic system that is safe from democratically voting to dissolve the democracy and replace it with whatever autocracy/kakistocracy/oligarchy we've got now?
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        No, that's a fundamental risk built into democracy. If any minority group has the power to overrule a majority vote, regardless of what the vote is for, then you don't really have a democracy.
      - vkou 2y ago
        No, every country is one election away from this shit-show. Which is why under no circumstances you should ever elect anyone who will send yours in that direction. Canadians, take note, the CPC only detached its lips from Trump's backside because they needed to come up for air. At minimum, don't elect people who staged failed coups. They and their supporters will not ever act like they are bound by law.
  - nradov 2y ago
    The executive branch has blatantly violated numerous laws but so far they have still obeyed court orders which explicitly required them to follow those laws. The real Constitutional crisis will come if they decide to openly defy a federal court order. I would also note that while the current Trump administration has broken federal laws at an accelerated rate, the previous Biden administration did much the same thing on a smaller scale. People here on HN frequently make excuses for Biden's illegal student loan forgiveness program because they liked the results but if we want to preserve the rule of law then it needs to apply to every program. In the long run allowing unchecked growth of executive branch power and the administrative state will be bad for everyone. https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-biden-student-loan-forgiveness-program/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-strikes-dow...
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  And sadly the Dems were all too willing to consolidate this power in the Executive because of expediency.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Both parties have consolidated power to the executive branch for decades, this isn't a one party problem.
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      It started with Lincoln and was expanded by Wilson and FDR.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        That's fair, Lincoln did kick it off. I've always considered it more that Lincoln crested the precedent that was only really used layer by FDR, but maybe that's ignoring nuance of how powers were expanded between the two.
        throwaway48476 2y ago
        Before Lincoln states had much more power. Both Lincoln and Wilson curtailed civil liberties. Wilson created the income tax which gave the president a large source of income. FDR created the bureaucracy that spends the income tax money.
giantg2 2y ago
"for people to find solidarity" That's not going to happen with the way tech/algos are exacerbating the divide.
- malfist 2y ago
  Which is increasingly looking intentional
  - giantg2 2y ago
    Nah, it's a by-product of giving people what they want to make money. This sort of issue has been building for a long time. It's based on abundance of resources and availability of choices. As we have more time and money to spend on things, we can make more independent choices and take positions on issues that we didnt even think about before. Essentially, the semi-homogeneous population slowly fragments into smaller and smaller factions that are not geographically constrained (thanks to tech).
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    We've known it is intentional since Cambridge Analytica at the latest.
    - giantg2 2y ago
      That wasn't about creating a split but rather taking advantage of an existing split, right?
      - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
        Potato potato
- soulofmischief 2y ago
  If you have engineering or product skills, now is the time to take a hard look in the mirror, inventory your interests and concerns, and figure out how to fight fire with fire. We need to be proliferating alternative, humanistic, empathetic software in the world and putting it into people's hands. It's easier than ever for us to independently build a wealth of defensive infrastructure for the common people.
wat10000 2y ago
The problem right now isn’t the rich. The problem is that half of the electorate is on board with this stuff. You can’t rally the people against this when half the population is in favor of it. I’m sure there’s a good argument that wealthy people and a broadening wealth divide are responsible for this, but it’s too late to attack that now. We need a huge shift in public sentiment if this is going to change now. Even if the outcome had been different in November. We’d still be in deep trouble. A lot less, but still a lot. The fundamental problem we have right now isn’t that Trump is President, it’s that about 50% of those who bother to vote think he’s worthy of it.
- JKCalhoun 2y ago
  Don't think you can address the one while not dismantling the other. Otherwise you're lucky to be trading water.
  - wat10000 2y ago
    I think you need the populace on your side first, though. Otherwise how can you change anything if you have neither government nor a majority? Unfortunately, I don’t see any way to change the minds of the American populace. They’ll have to learn the hard lesson of where this stuff goes. The problem is that we all have to learn that lesson alongside them whether we need it or not.
    - JKCalhoun 2y ago
      I hate to say it, but you need a populist leader that blames everything on the wealthy.
- naijaboiler 2y ago
  It’s still the wealthy, leaning on social issues to create a democratic majority

rhubarbtree 2y ago

What makes you think it will be repaired? I’ll go for America splinters into at least two countries.

inglor_cz 2y ago
For this to happen, the US population is probably too old on average, and too overweight. Civil wars and the like are usually based on youth bulges, as they need a lot of breathing bodies to fight it out. Preferrably slightly hungry bodies, as hungry people are easier to provoke into fighting.
- apeescape 2y ago
  Who knows what the next American civil war would look like.
  - inglor_cz 2y ago
    Lots of destroyed keyboards?
    - rvnx 2y ago
      Stealth donations to unauthorized political parties through OnlyFans or meme coins.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Despite all the 2nd Amendement talk, it mainly comes down to the military. The military have the tanks, the air support, the logistics, the surveilence net, the miscelaneous support equipment, and all the training to use everything. A split within the military, that gets real ugly real fast.
    - ty6853 2y ago
      I think any civil war would have a split within the military, because in your premise that they're using tanks and aircraft, some people are not going to want to bomb the place where their mother or child lives, not to mention the supply chain of all that fancy stuff relies on a somewhat functioning domestic society to make and deliver much of the underlying goodies and support.

cscurmudgeon 2y ago

To any neutral non European observer, this is what they may see 1. Europe propped up Russia despite Obama and Trump’s warnings before the war 2. Europe still buys more from Russia than they give Ukraine in financial aid 3. Europe is more friendly towards America’s rival China 4. Europe expects US to spend more protecting Europe than Europe

karparov 2y ago

It doesn't help that the tech sector is falling in line. Spearheaded by Musk who is still glorified my many in the industry, other tech giants are following suit. Meta, Google, Amazon, nobody dares challenging the new US order and is playing along. This is really where the HN crowd should realize how much they are involved in this. Tech was one of the bullwarks against right wing fascist takeover. Not anymore, they are playing along. It's going to be dark.

LadyCailin 2y ago
I never thought that. They have always just played along with society. When LGBT rights were fashionable, they were more than happy to jump on that bandwagon and rainbow wash everything for money. Which, is great, don’t get me wrong, but I never thought for one second it was because the leadership truly thought that was important deep down in their hearts (Tim Cook perhaps excepted, but even then not fully, as he still cares about business more than principals, though he has more to lose personally.)
- karparov 2y ago
  Excellent point. Why would a move a certain crowd likes be out of principle and when the tide turned and a move in the opposite direction happens suddenly be just opportunism? The more realistic/neutral interpretation is that it's all just opportunism in either direction. Zuck is probably the best example.