Who is "they"? If this isn't a bipartisan issue, that's a travesty and a mockery of our democracy. Another nation interfering in our elections shouldnt be a partisan issue.
> "Another nation interfering in our elections shouldnt be a partisan issue." When you say "interfering," are you talking about buying ads?
Mueller's investigation has gone far beyond buying ads. But yes,I absolutely think it should be illegal for foreign nations to participate in our political process either through direct means (donations), or indirect (funding political ads), and I consider both interference in our elections.
Pedantic, but Voice of America is basically a US "propaganda" outfit. But a lot of countries do not really have this. RT is totally at a different scale. It's clearly being used as a political outfit. Other state-owned media in many countries have rules about editorial independence. RT clearly does not.
>Voice of America Anecdotally, I've literally never heard of this before.
It's not allowed to target Americans, so its profile in the US is pretty low.
> "Another nation interfering in our elections shouldnt be a partisan issue." When you say "interfering," are you talking about buying ads?
Mueller's investigation has gone far beyond buying ads. But yes,I absolutely think it should be illegal for foreign nations to participate in our political process either through direct means (donations), or indirect (funding political ads), and I consider both interference in our elections.
Do the foreign countries you want to ban from influencing US elections include other western countries like Canada, Britain or Germany? What about Mexico? What if Mexico also bought ads to promote legalizing undocumented immigrants from Mexico? What if the undocumented immigrants themselves bought ads, do they count as foreign or domestic?
I generally agree with you that they are doing good things but the bigger question is what harm are they doing? We need to stop having these huge mergers. Think what a different landscape we'd have if Facebook didn't own Instagram and WhatsApp. Those companies had a choice, fight FB with limited money or cash out. (I'm not judging them...) Look at Snap. They've said no and so FB threw all their money at duplicating a…
You lost me at "Musk is the only one who really seems to be "walking the walk"", which is inconsistent with the rest of your theory, but luckily for you that was the last sentence. :) It's clear Musk is also interested in consolidation and expansion of his empire, probably one day under X.com brand, but I guess since he is good at working on his fan base and talking about imaginary ideas, he should be treated differe…
What you say is fair, I wasn't saying Musk is 100% altruistic. I think the push for solar and electric cars are good for the planet though even if they are good for his checkbook too. I was using him as an example of someone who is actively working on the projects not simply funding others to do good work. (Incidentally, I don't think self-driving cars is something that I'd call altruistic)
Do you really believe this? You really think 100k stands up to 1Billion?
Traditional media buys versus well targeted ads on Facebook. You don't need to sway everyone. That 100k stands up a lot more than one would think just comparing the two numbers.
How do you know? Have you ever worked in online advertising? Most companies easily spend 100k a month. Are you aware you are being manipulated by the media on this story?