Google, amazon, facebook, etc. have so much money it's absurd. Maybe they should start dumping it into "grass roots" campaigning like the Koch brothers have been doing for 20 years. In fact,...
Google, amazon, facebook, etc. have so much money it's absurd. Maybe they should start dumping it into "grass roots" campaigning like the Koch brothers have been doing for 20 years.
In fact, they're way better at data analysis than the companies the GOP are hiring to figure out who to hire, who to pay, where to target efforts, etc.
To me this seems like an extremely stupid idea. Piss off the biggest companies on earth? Enjoy endless legal battles and them pumping their money into the competition until you see your kind eliminated from politics.
I don't think they're too worried about opposition from these companies. As long as the party controls the federal government they have the power to remove the protections that make these...
I don't think they're too worried about opposition from these companies. As long as the party controls the federal government they have the power to remove the protections that make these companies so rich, as a user mentioned above. As soon as Facebook or Google started "pumping money" congress could get something moving.
First you have to consider whether they'd be able to pass an anti-business law. Many republican voters would actually be against something like this, and some senators and house members might be...
they have the power to remove the protections that make these companies so rich
First you have to consider whether they'd be able to pass an anti-business law. Many republican voters would actually be against something like this, and some senators and house members might be in close enough races that they couldn't support a law like this. However, assuming they can pass something like this, I think you underestimate how slowly law actually moves.
Even if they managed to pass something through house and congress and not get vetoed (Trump is still a bit of a wild card, when it comes to business law), there would be at least a year if not several before it went into effect.
Furthermore, once it did go into effect, these companies have so much money and so many lawyers that they could sue the government to not comply with the law and drag it out for 5, 10, maybe even 15 years before they had to comply.
That's plenty of time to pump money into congress, flip the house and senate, and repeal law or enact new law which overrides the old law.
I find Google's claim that they have serious competition slightly ridiculous. Google Search has such a huge majority, websites must bend to whatever new rules it puts in place to keep getting...
I find Google's claim that they have serious competition slightly ridiculous. Google Search has such a huge majority, websites must bend to whatever new rules it puts in place to keep getting placed well - see AMP. GMail is taking over email and theyre 'enhancing' that still-open protocol now. If you want your videos to get an audience, you simply have to use YouTube (though discontent may be rising).
The GOP plans in the article are concerning, but I don't like the Democrats' complacency either. The EU seems to be the best regulator of American tech companies.
Unconstitutional. Even if they are censoring right wing content (which they're probably not, people just don't like them) because the House Judiciary Committee is the main actor, action to force...
Several vocal lawmakers on the powerful House Judiciary Committee are threatening to clamp down on Silicon Valley unless companies .. can prove they’re treating conservative .. content the same as they treat .. mainstream material.
Unconstitutional. Even if they are censoring right wing content (which they're probably not, people just don't like them) because the House Judiciary Committee is the main actor, action to force them to promote them would be against the first amendment.
Anyone else think this proposal mentioned would be a good thing if it actually happened? I'm all for more openness in this regard, even though I disagree with the reason it's being proposed. I'd...
One of the [proposals] would be to require that they publish the algorithms.
Anyone else think this proposal mentioned would be a good thing if it actually happened? I'm all for more openness in this regard, even though I disagree with the reason it's being proposed. I'd like to see what others think.
Prior to the election, this happened: Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg meets with conservative leaders - Sixteen people, including Glenn Beck, Jim DeMint, SE Cupp, Dana Perino, and Tucker Carlson,...
Prior to the election, this happened: Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg meets with conservative leaders - Sixteen people, including Glenn Beck, Jim DeMint, SE Cupp, Dana Perino, and Tucker Carlson, attended the sit-down at Facebook headquarters.
I can only imagine it took one thing to make Zuck get in line: "Mark, have you ever heard of the Sherman Act?"
This whole thing is f'd. To be honest, I have less and less hope as time passes.
Trumpism is altrightism. If you support Trump you support the altright, you don't have to post pepes and call people libtards on twitter to fit the description.
Trumpism is altrightism. If you support Trump you support the altright, you don't have to post pepes and call people libtards on twitter to fit the description.
I think you may be underestimating the human mind’s power of denial. As I said in the other comment, 9.5% of Obama voters cast a ballot for Trump. A lot of those people now likely have Trumpgret,...
I think you may be underestimating the human mind’s power of denial. As I said in the other comment, 9.5% of Obama voters cast a ballot for Trump. A lot of those people now likely have Trumpgret, but many do not. They watch only Fox, etc. The are not presented with the same facts that we are, and don’t associate Trump with the alt-right like we do.
Note: I agree with you, that if you have all of the information then Trumpism is alt-right as hell.
I think the root of the disagreement is the definition of "alt-right". There's a push, mostly among Trump supporters from what I've seen, to narrow the definition such that alt-right is synonymous...
I think the root of the disagreement is the definition of "alt-right".
There's a push, mostly among Trump supporters from what I've seen, to narrow the definition such that alt-right is synonymous with white nationalist / white supremacist.
The broader definition, which seems to be more popular with Trump detractors, is that alt-right means what it says - alternative right. The "old" right was characterized by the #NeverTrump movement and the search for a candidate that could defeat him in the 2015/16 primaries. An alternative right sprung up that embraced Trump rather than rejecting him.
They are demonstrably not. A study by the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group found that 9.2% of Obama voters voted for Trump in 2016. I am pretty sure that the overlap of altright voters and Obama...
I am pretty sure that the overlap of altright voters and Obama voters is very minimal.
People really want to just lump all trump voters into one group of dumb racist people, but it’s actually much more complicated than that.
The meme of “finincial anxiety” excusing racism is used by many anti-trumpers. It’d be so nice and simple if it was just racism. But looking closer at the numbers shows that is not the case. I fear that if Dems don’t wrap their heads around all of the reasons for Trump’s election, and just keep calling all trump voters racist, then we may get another term.
I really hope the EFF can step in on this. I'm no big fan of Google, but I'm even less a fan of the GOP telling them how to operate. This kind of controlling step just reeks of authoritarian...
I really hope the EFF can step in on this. I'm no big fan of Google, but I'm even less a fan of the GOP telling them how to operate. This kind of controlling step just reeks of authoritarian governments a la China, Russia, etc. And you can imagine this expanding from "Silicon Valley companies" to "online news companies" and beyond...
Google, amazon, facebook, etc. have so much money it's absurd. Maybe they should start dumping it into "grass roots" campaigning like the Koch brothers have been doing for 20 years.
In fact, they're way better at data analysis than the companies the GOP are hiring to figure out who to hire, who to pay, where to target efforts, etc.
To me this seems like an extremely stupid idea. Piss off the biggest companies on earth? Enjoy endless legal battles and them pumping their money into the competition until you see your kind eliminated from politics.
I don't think they're too worried about opposition from these companies. As long as the party controls the federal government they have the power to remove the protections that make these companies so rich, as a user mentioned above. As soon as Facebook or Google started "pumping money" congress could get something moving.
First you have to consider whether they'd be able to pass an anti-business law. Many republican voters would actually be against something like this, and some senators and house members might be in close enough races that they couldn't support a law like this. However, assuming they can pass something like this, I think you underestimate how slowly law actually moves.
Even if they managed to pass something through house and congress and not get vetoed (Trump is still a bit of a wild card, when it comes to business law), there would be at least a year if not several before it went into effect.
Furthermore, once it did go into effect, these companies have so much money and so many lawyers that they could sue the government to not comply with the law and drag it out for 5, 10, maybe even 15 years before they had to comply.
That's plenty of time to pump money into congress, flip the house and senate, and repeal law or enact new law which overrides the old law.
I find Google's claim that they have serious competition slightly ridiculous. Google Search has such a huge majority, websites must bend to whatever new rules it puts in place to keep getting placed well - see AMP. GMail is taking over email and theyre 'enhancing' that still-open protocol now. If you want your videos to get an audience, you simply have to use YouTube (though discontent may be rising).
The GOP plans in the article are concerning, but I don't like the Democrats' complacency either. The EU seems to be the best regulator of American tech companies.
Unconstitutional. Even if they are censoring right wing content (which they're probably not, people just don't like them) because the House Judiciary Committee is the main actor, action to force them to promote them would be against the first amendment.
Anyone else think this proposal mentioned would be a good thing if it actually happened? I'm all for more openness in this regard, even though I disagree with the reason it's being proposed. I'd like to see what others think.
Prior to the election, this happened: Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg meets with conservative leaders - Sixteen people, including Glenn Beck, Jim DeMint, SE Cupp, Dana Perino, and Tucker Carlson, attended the sit-down at Facebook headquarters.
I can only imagine it took one thing to make Zuck get in line: "Mark, have you ever heard of the Sherman Act?"
This whole thing is f'd. To be honest, I have less and less hope as time passes.
I'm trying so hard to remain hopeful as well
I don't think they're really that oversized, the "altright" is just the opinions of a substantial portion of America laid out into the open.
citation needed
Donald Trump's approval rating.
Because everyone who voted Trump is altright?
Trumpism is altrightism. If you support Trump you support the altright, you don't have to post pepes and call people libtards on twitter to fit the description.
I think you may be underestimating the human mind’s power of denial. As I said in the other comment, 9.5% of Obama voters cast a ballot for Trump. A lot of those people now likely have Trumpgret, but many do not. They watch only Fox, etc. The are not presented with the same facts that we are, and don’t associate Trump with the alt-right like we do.
Note: I agree with you, that if you have all of the information then Trumpism is alt-right as hell.
I think the root of the disagreement is the definition of "alt-right".
There's a push, mostly among Trump supporters from what I've seen, to narrow the definition such that alt-right is synonymous with white nationalist / white supremacist.
The broader definition, which seems to be more popular with Trump detractors, is that alt-right means what it says - alternative right. The "old" right was characterized by the #NeverTrump movement and the search for a candidate that could defeat him in the 2015/16 primaries. An alternative right sprung up that embraced Trump rather than rejecting him.
You make really good points, thanks.
They are demonstrably not. A study by the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group found that 9.2% of Obama voters voted for Trump in 2016.
I am pretty sure that the overlap of altright voters and Obama voters is very minimal.
People really want to just lump all trump voters into one group of dumb racist people, but it’s actually much more complicated than that.
The meme of “finincial anxiety” excusing racism is used by many anti-trumpers. It’d be so nice and simple if it was just racism. But looking closer at the numbers shows that is not the case. I fear that if Dems don’t wrap their heads around all of the reasons for Trump’s election, and just keep calling all trump voters racist, then we may get another term.
I really hope the EFF can step in on this. I'm no big fan of Google, but I'm even less a fan of the GOP telling them how to operate. This kind of controlling step just reeks of authoritarian governments a la China, Russia, etc. And you can imagine this expanding from "Silicon Valley companies" to "online news companies" and beyond...