4 ms·

> us to have better political links to the US government. Us? Are you on Dropbox's board? Why is wedding corporate power to political influence wise for this i

> us to have better political links to the US government. Us? Are you on Dropbox's board? Why is wedding corporate power to political influence wise for this industry? Astonishing naiveté. > don't downvote or upvote just to normalise your own political beliefs. What a meaningless statement. Post on your blog if you don't want your opinion torn apart like a piece of meat. All the comments I've seen thus far are civil. EDIT: It's too bad OP is unwilling to engage in any real dialogue on this issue. Other comments make excellent points which lhnz also ignores and dismisses.

lhnz 12y ago
Yes - if you work in the tech industry you are affected by policies which affect the industry as a whole. Wedding corporate power to political influence is wise for the industry because that is exactly what we are up against already: corporate power has been wedded to political influence for a very long time and one can easily point out attempts that have already been made to protect previously established industries. See, it's easy, I was able to argue back without resorting to name calling.
- jeangenie 12y ago
  > exactly what we are up against already There's that pesky collective noun again. Again, you labor under a delusion of a shared struggle. > one can easily point out attempts that have already been made to protect previously established industries. Such as a company that's raised over a billion dollars seeking to protect its position in a lucrative market by appointing politically well-connected board members? No way! > I was able to argue back without resorting to name calling. And so was I. What's your point?
  - lhnz 12y ago
    > I was able to argue back without resorting to name calling. And so was I. What's your point? You use words like "naiveté", "delusion", "meaningless" which are clearly derogatory so you are wrong again. Hilariously your comment "all the comments I've seen thus far are civil" completely rung true until you got involved.
    - jeangenie 12y ago
      Then perhaps we misunderstand each other. I used those terms to describe (accurately, in my opinion) your opinions, they have nothing to do with you as a person.
      - manicdee 12y ago
        Nonsense. The things you say about a persons opinions are still things you say against that person. It just becomes more acceptable in some circles to describe someone as having naive opinions than describing the person as naive. The best course of action is to leave the emotive language out of the discussion.
  - ajkjk 12y ago
    "Astonishing naiveté." "delusion of a shared struggle" "What a meaningless statement." "Post on your blog if you don't want your opinion torn apart like a piece of meat" You have not been "civil". Quit being an ass.
    - jeangenie 12y ago
      Am I a tool or an ass? Do you have anything of substance to add?
      - ajkjk 12y ago
        yeah, I reconsidered the wording since 'tool' has a certain connotation that I didn't intend. I was hoping to be part of the several voices that were telling you you were wrong, because maybe hearing it from lots of people would make it more convincing.
sliverstorm 12y ago
I believe the idea is that, given the choice between - Nobody in the entire tech industry has influence over government - A few key players like Apple and Google have influence over government Your parent is saying, the latter is better, because Apple & Google (being tech companies) have shared interests with other tech companies. Certainly there is risk that the big companies would use their influence in government to trample smaller tech companies, but could it be that risk is smaller than the risks of the whole tech sector having zero say/influence in government at all?

lhnz 12y ago

Yes - if you work in the tech industry you are affected by policies which affect the industry as a whole. Wedding corporate power to political influence is wise for the industry because that is exactly what we are up against already: corporate power has been wedded to political influence for a very long time and one can easily point out attempts that have already been made to protect previously established industries. See, it's easy, I was able to argue back without resorting to name calling.

jeangenie 12y ago
> exactly what we are up against already There's that pesky collective noun again. Again, you labor under a delusion of a shared struggle. > one can easily point out attempts that have already been made to protect previously established industries. Such as a company that's raised over a billion dollars seeking to protect its position in a lucrative market by appointing politically well-connected board members? No way! > I was able to argue back without resorting to name calling. And so was I. What's your point?
- lhnz 12y ago
  > I was able to argue back without resorting to name calling. And so was I. What's your point? You use words like "naiveté", "delusion", "meaningless" which are clearly derogatory so you are wrong again. Hilariously your comment "all the comments I've seen thus far are civil" completely rung true until you got involved.
  - jeangenie 12y ago
    Then perhaps we misunderstand each other. I used those terms to describe (accurately, in my opinion) your opinions, they have nothing to do with you as a person.
    - manicdee 12y ago
      Nonsense. The things you say about a persons opinions are still things you say against that person. It just becomes more acceptable in some circles to describe someone as having naive opinions than describing the person as naive. The best course of action is to leave the emotive language out of the discussion.
- ajkjk 12y ago
  "Astonishing naiveté." "delusion of a shared struggle" "What a meaningless statement." "Post on your blog if you don't want your opinion torn apart like a piece of meat" You have not been "civil". Quit being an ass.
  - jeangenie 12y ago
    Am I a tool or an ass? Do you have anything of substance to add?
    - ajkjk 12y ago
      yeah, I reconsidered the wording since 'tool' has a certain connotation that I didn't intend. I was hoping to be part of the several voices that were telling you you were wrong, because maybe hearing it from lots of people would make it more convincing.

sliverstorm 12y ago

I believe the idea is that, given the choice between - Nobody in the entire tech industry has influence over government - A few key players like Apple and Google have influence over government Your parent is saying, the latter is better, because Apple & Google (being tech companies) have shared interests with other tech companies. Certainly there is risk that the big companies would use their influence in government to trample smaller tech companies, but could it be that risk is smaller than the risks of the whole tech sector having zero say/influence in government at all?