6 ms·
To the contrary, the entire DOJ understands that FAANG and the three-letter-agencies are one revolving door. Any judge that attempts to defang Google's data col
by bigyabai 2mo ago
To the contrary, the entire DOJ understands that FAANG and the three-letter-agencies are one revolving door. Any judge that attempts to defang Google's data collection may well run afoul of the American surveillance system, which this administration will fight tooth and nail to defend.
Not very different from how federal protectionism keeps Apple's App Store centralized despite trillions of dollars in ostensible market damage. Anyone trying to loosen America's grip on software distribution is crossing an ugly national security line that we're all too ashamed to admit exists.
- vasco 2mo agoSince you are getting no replies but getting downvoted I'm adding source from 2016 corroborating what you mention: https://www.techtransparencyproject.org/articles/googles-revolving-door-us https://www.techtransparencyproject.org/articles/googles-rev... 251 individuals in such detected instances just in google. And that report is 10 years old, I'd bet it's 10x that by now.
- strictnein 2mo agoThat makes the argument worse, not better. Google employees tens of thousands of people. The US intelligence apparatus employees hundreds of thousands of people. In all of that, over eight years, there are 251 people who moved between the two, and because of that absolute rounding error, the entire federal government is beholden to them? Since you are making the accusation that this is a real conspiracy: statistically, how many people should have rotated between these two giant employers over an 8 year span? The answer isn't zero. Also, this makes the "data" even more pointless: "between Google or related firms, and the federal government, national political campaigns and Congress during President Obama’s time in office" "were appointed to federal advisory boards." Do you know how many of those boards exist? There are tons of them. I've known a couple of people who have served on them. They're incredibly boring and deal with things like "What accessibility standards should federal government websites support?". Of course you would want people from Google on that type of board. > 251 individuals in such detected instances just in google. And that report is 10 years old, I'd bet it's 10x that by now. "Detected instances" It's so secret that I can name one of them off the top of my head: Matt Cutts. Is he part of this vast conspiracy too?
- vasco 2mo agoWhat conspiracy mate? It's not so deep, I was curious if what he said was a lie due to the downvotes and found nice evidence for it. You don't find it convincing it's your choice, but the dude didn't pull it out of his ass.
- strictnein 2mo agoThe conspiracy that Google is protected on high because people have rotated between two giant employers. If you think it is "nice evidence", how many people should have moved between those two employers? And you made the claim that the rate likely drastically increased over the past 10 years. Based on what, exactly?
- watwut 2mo agoBig companies being protected "from high" based on payments and favors is not conspiracy theory anymore. It is out there in the open expected thing.
- ux266478 2mo agoYou think that giant employers being protected, especially when they align themselves with government interests of the day, is a conspiracy? Do you also think that suggesting economic producer interests are a high priority is a conspiracy? Or that corporations with contracts to the government are generally compliant with governmental requests?
- JMiao 2mo agoyes, such has been the reality for some time now. look at boeing
- DarmokTanagra 2mo ago[dead]
- strictnein 2mo agoThe DOJ isn't part of the Judiciary branch, it's part of the Executive. > FAANG and the three-letter-agencies are one revolving door Most of the NSA is active duty service members and former military. Did you mean other three letter agencies, excluding the most powerful one dealing with surveillance? > Any judge that attempts to interfere with Google's data collection may well run afoul of the American surveillance system The judge in this case put the final nail into Trumps slush fund. But now she's doing his bidding. Is that what you're claiming? Not everything is a conspiracy. You don't have some special insight into this.
- bigyabai 2mo ago> The judge in this case put the final nail into Trumps slush fund. That's a very different, partisan effort. It's not bipartisan like the Patriot Act was, or domestic surveillance in-general. > Not everything is a conspiracy. You don't have some special insight into this. Not everything is as it seems. You can't meaningfully prove that the NSA sat on their hands in the 13 interceding years since Snowden. There's no evidence that US interventionism is on the straight-and-narrow now, you're wishcasting and calling it truth.
- strictnein 2mo ago> You can't meaningfully prove that the NSA sat on their hands in the 13 interceding years since Snowden. I mean, you're correct? It's impossible to prove a negative. > There's no evidence that US interventionism is on the straight-and-narrow now, you're wishcasting and calling it truth. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that. You're the ones making the extraordinary claims. The burden of proof is on you, not the people pointing out the flaws in these claims.
- mobelkh 2mo agoi would argue, the NSA not being up to some bullshit is more unlikely, and thus has the burden of proof on it, to assume otherwise is to ignore history and basic incentives these orgs have.
- 2mo ago
- surcap526 2mo ago[dead]
- rootsudo 2mo ago100% glad someone states the obvious. Sometimes here people think these tech companies are on truly altruistic missions on making “the world a better place!!1” or truly making an impact by being an IC in their role and having access to perks which, have largely been taken away as the market matures to data collection and surveillance. If you want to have some fun, go on LinkedIn and see how many former military people, proud of their service, boast how they are at x or y tech company in director esque roles. Then bookmark them and see the pages disappear in the future. Boy I’m glad it’s legally 100% ok to scrap LinkedIn data because it truly is a revolving door.
- edgyquant 2mo agoCan you give an example of what you’re saying here? Companies spin up and vanish?
- JMiao 2mo agoagree with you but including netflix is becoming hilarious
- xp84 2mo agoThe acronym gets awkward if we don't, though
- edoceo 2mo agoI thought we were using "Mag7" these days.
- makeitdouble 2mo agoOr that N could be Nvidia now.
- roosterIllusi0n 2mo agoRCS is google's foothold. It forces everyone to share with google and currently, there is no carrier option for RCS. You have to pick google or apple or go without.
- ralfd 2mo ago> Apple's App Store centralized despite trillions of dollars in ostensible market damage Please. The Androidfication of iOS with malware/scamware would cost quadrillions in market damage.
- gambiting 2mo agoCitation needed. The idea that somehow my mum can't even find the space bar on her keyboard and yet is competent enough to go through several warning screens to install a custom .apk is just laughable.
- jen20 2mo ago> is competent enough to go through several warning screens What about "is incompetent enough to press the buttons when the nice man from Microsoft calls about the viruses on her USB"?
- gambiting 2mo agoShe's laugh at him and disconnect. She might not know where the space bar is but she's not an idiot.
- jen20 2mo agoGood for her - MANY people fall for these scams, however.
- bigyabai 2mo agoThe internet is full of scams. If you desensitize someone to that reality, then you better disable Safari access, iMessage, calls and FaceTime for their own good.
- jen20 2mo agoIndeed, it would be a good idea for iOS to have a mode for the elderly that is almost exactly like that (similar to child mode, and for similar reasons).
- alexashka 2mo ago> an ugly national security line that we're all too ashamed to admit exists We're all ashamed, apparently?? What do they call this, projections of a guilty conscience?
- bigyabai 2mo agoJingoism. America loves the free market until TikTok and Chinese cars enter it, then it's kicking and screaming all the way down.
- alexashka 2mo agoYou're not getting it. There is no 'we', there is no 'America'. These are propaganda terms. When you use them, you bolster the people who mindlessly repeat slogans and frustrate those who don't. It's a lose-lose.
- bigyabai 2mo agoMy point was to relate the American POV of the judge with the America-optimistic POV of the parent comment. Using "we" and "America" in that context is perfectly clarifying, I'm not beholden to pivot to your pet nitpick.
- alexashka 2mo agoYou're not beholden to make any effort to understand me or anyone else, that's a given. Here is what an LLM thinks about what you've done: > The “we” is doing a lot of rhetorical work: it turns what could have been stated as “the U.S. government doesn't openly admit this” into the much broader and more dramatic “we Americans are collectively unwilling to admit it.” I hope that helps. Or is the LLM also nitpicking and failing to understand your 'perfectly clarifying' remarks? Feel free to copy paste and ask an LLM yourself, all I did was ask it 'who is the 'we' referring to?' and copy pasted original parent and your reply.
- 2mo ago
- shevy-java 2mo agoUnderstandable, but how is that fair to other competitors? The whole system is now easily abused by huge mega-corporations. That goes against capitalism. Why did the USA suddenly abandon capitalism?
- M95D 2mo agoThere's nothing sudden about it. It was happening since 1970, according to one very popular site.
- anon84873628 2mo agoThen why is the DOJ bringing the anti-trust cases in the first place? You think it's all one big conspiracy with the judges so they can save face with consumers? This litigation was initiated under the Biden admin and not withdrawn by Trump.
- bigyabai 2mo agoBecause winning an anti-trust case sets a much larger precedent than having no case at all. Closing the case can block repeat litigation on the same grounds. If you were Meta, for example, you would much rather be investigated by a corrupt administration than gamble on a future administration being nice. You might even make political donations to this end, and curry favor with the politicians to steer into the outcome you want. Like how Apple was able to escalate foreign App Store litigation to a presidential flamewar, all because Tim Cook bet on the right political cards. We see the same partisan cake-cutting with AI firms, as a way to punish Anthropic for not kissing ass hard enough. The natural response to a grassroots demand for regulation is to invest your money against it. If Microsoft could avoid a breakup, why can't Google? Why not Apple? What if they're all for sale, like the Catholic Church selling indulgences?
- anon84873628 2mo agoThis case against Google was initiated under Biden, and generally celebrated at the time. For your theory to be correct you need to explain how the DOJ brought a deliberately flawed case or weakened it at some point. I haven't read anyone suggesting anything like that.