61–70 of 98 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And the possibility exists he'd exact the same thing on a target like FB. thinking that this is possible is disingenuous and such a conservative fever dream.
So Sheryll is now a conservative? Uhhuh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump's promises may not fit well with half the people but he has done all he promised. See list below. Lets see zuck try that - I think he will succeed too at least better than the "charming" presidents of the recent past on either side TPP cancelled Prison reform NAFTA renegotiated (this is something that is nit clear how well he did) China trade war (which by bloombergs account he has an upper hand in) North Korea…
> he has done all he promised Yes, he closed all those tax loopholes that he is an expert at exploiting (his words, not mine). He implemented his plan to win the war in Afghanistan. The wall along the border of Mexico is 30 feet tall and beautiful and Mexico paid for it. The opioid problem has been solved. He has released his tax returns. He has put his assets in a blind trust. He has Made America Great Again.
>told subordinates to examine why Mr. Soros had criticized the tech companies and whether he stood to gain financially from the attacks. Well, he is an investor who has a history of causing financial damage to whole countries by betting against their currencies. So, it shouldn't be surprising FB would want to know what might be in store for them if he went nuclear on them. What is surprising is the odd bedfellows of…
But let's say they look into it...are they likely to find his criticism to be reasonable and just walk away after that?
I just wonder if you go as far as to investigate such things if you've got some motivation or inclination to find / feel their actions are biased or uncalled for and that might lead to what Facebook did... fire up their own disinformation...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which outrage are you referring to? I didn't see any in the article. It seemed pretty even keeled.
I think the outrage is implicit in the the publication of the article. Why is this in the New York Times? He criticized the company, she asked is he had a financial interest behind the criticism. Okay? Why is this a story?
>told subordinates to examine why Mr. Soros had criticized the tech companies and whether he stood to gain financially from the attacks. Well, he is an investor who has a history of causing financial damage to whole countries by betting against their currencies. So, it shouldn't be surprising FB would want to know what might be in store for them if he went nuclear on them. What is surprising is the odd bedfellows of…
If someone is publicly saying questionable things about your organization, then trying to find out what their motivations might be by doing research is just common sense (especially if the company in question is publicly traded). So I'm with you there, I don't get the outrage here at all. It comes off as cheap and manufactured from what I'm seeing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which outrage are you referring to? I didn't see any in the article. It seemed pretty even keeled.
I think the outrage is implicit in the the publication of the article. Why is this in the New York Times? He criticized the company, she asked is he had a financial interest behind the criticism. Okay? Why is this a story?
Because George Soros is a lightning rod for the alt-right and NWO conspiracy theorists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree, I don't think they fear that. I'm not sure why Zuckerberg was ever really floated as a potential candidate. He's not particularly charismatic and fails the "beer test" with basically everybody in America, and would likely have a harder time connecting with the voting masses than Hillary Clinton. With his lack of experience added to that, and no real ability to run as an 'outsider' as a billionaire tech el…
>fails the "beer test" with basically everybody in America. Sounds nailed on to be the DNC nominee then.
Obviously the exception here is Hillary Clinton. But I do wonder about the gender component of the beer test - while she was seen as aloof and alienating a lot of women didn't see Hillary that way.
This may be an unpopular opinion but here it is: Zuckerburg started this as a hobby with it being something he may never have thought of becoming full-scale. Fast forward to today and Zuckerburg is in over his head. He has control over this !massive! amount of data that companies are chomping at the bit for. He’s trying to make sure his company survives and his product does no harm. But, he’s losing control. They’re…
You are spot on and we see the results of very poorly managed company...
>told subordinates to examine why Mr. Soros had criticized the tech companies and whether he stood to gain financially from the attacks. Well, he is an investor who has a history of causing financial damage to whole countries by betting against their currencies. So, it shouldn't be surprising FB would want to know what might be in store for them if he went nuclear on them. What is surprising is the odd bedfellows of…
> Well, he is an investor who has a history of causing financial damage to whole countries by betting against their currencies Whole countries? I have heard of only one - the infamous british pound. And that too it caused the GBP rates to fall but then financial damage to Britian as a country? What is your source exactly?
Soros wasn’t alone, but the hedges funds certainly helped crush Thailand in 1997, triggering the Asian financial crisis. It’s not a stretch to suggest that his massive funding of political groups in countries in which he has bet against the currency is connected.