Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Former officials say big tech monopoly power is vital to national security

greenwald.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 235 posts

Re: Former officials say big tech monopoly power is vital to national security

#121

Post by incomingpain »

notacoward wrote: post #59
incomingpain wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>From your comment, you went unnecessarily political regarding the January 6, 2021 insurrection. In my view, this is why people downvoted your comment. The common narrative is that it was insurrection That hasn't been true for months. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_United_States_Capitol_att... Wiki used to call it insurrection but it's not that. I understand the criticism that perhaps it's because it's political,…

> Wiki used to call it insurrection but it's not that. They don't call it insurrection only because "seditious conspiracy" is the more legally accurate term, and the charge on which convictions have already been obtained. But ask a layperson to describe the difference and you'll get nothing. Even the US house and senate voted on impeachment for "incitement of insurrection" despite the legal distinction. Saying that i…

I withdraw my position about US government and twitter.

>They don't call it insurrection only because "seditious conspiracy" is the more legally accurate term, and the charge on which convictions have already been obtained.

I think I saw this on twitter. I'm not going to argue over this one. Even the wikipage extensively uses the word insurrection still.

This is a super non-issue. In fact, the differing reactions and hard line take on these contemporary political protests is all that matters.

I could also point out, but it won't help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_efforts_to_restrict...

Elon isn't too late. Seemingly he's ahead of me on this one. I didn't realize how bad it is.

I just hope Canada and Mexico stay out of this.

Re: Former officials say big tech monopoly power is vital to national security

#122

Post by Aunche »

cryptica wrote: post #92
Aunche wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The problem with the US and the west is not freedom of speech or the free market, it's our debt-based monetary system which is now based on soft money. The decline started in 1971 when USD became detached from the gold standard. You have it backwards. We didn't end Bretton Woods because the government wanted to print money. The government was printing money, so they had to end Bretton Woods or else hyperinflation wo…

The Bretton Woods system never fully ended in reality. Bretton Woods just ensured that all foreign fiat currencies would be pegged to the US dollar which at the time was pegged to gold. It was intended as a mechanism to allow all global currencies to be indirectly pegged to gold via the USD. When Nixon abandoned the gold standard in 1971, the fiat currencies of all countries around the world were still pegged to the…

>The Bretton Woods system never fully ended in reality

Sure, we still have the IMF, but I'm specifically referring to part referring to the "gold standard". Again, it wasn't really a gold standard because the deal only extended to governments that happened to be desperate for capital. Regular people couldn't even own significant quantities of gold at the time.

>the fiat currencies of all countries around the world were still pegged to the USD.

This isn't true. Otherwise, exchange rates wouldn't be changing every second. Countries were allowed to choose how their currency was exchanged, and most of the major players allowed their currency to float freely.

>USD to hyperinflate relative to other currencies because all countries were still trying to maintain a stable exchange rate relative to the USD.

The USD never hyperinflated at all. I think the gist of what you're saying is true, like how Japan started to devalue its currency after the Yen started increasing in value. However, this precisely shows the problem with deflation. If your money grows just by sitting on it, there is little reason to invest in businesses, and it may be profitable to even downsize your business.

>You should watch 'Hidden Secrets of Money'

That was produced by the founder of goldsilver.com, so it's hardly an unbiased source. His business gains from sowing distrust in the financial system. I didn't watch this particular series, but I'm familiar with their arguments after I started investing in precious metals. I don't think their history is wrong, but IMO, they miss the entire point of money. Money isn't meant to be stored because it doesn't do any work. Money is something made up to facilitate trade as easily as possible. That's why it never makes any sense to artificially place constraints on it (e.g. pegging it to gold). This doesn't mean that we should abuse this freedom to print money on a whim either, but that's a completely separate problem.

Re: Former officials say big tech monopoly power is vital to national security

#123

Post by weeblewobble »

incomingpain wrote: post #98
spamizbad wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so, but to indulge my own cranky theories: Perhaps Elon Musk's takeover attempt was done at the behest of the US government to take control of the platform under the cover of "censorship". Musk himself indicated he wanted to make the platform more miserable for the "extremes" on both the left and right (both perceived as being anti-government) - leaving you with the establishment consensus unharmed in t…

That's a cool idea. Largely speaking you can see Elon's point of view. He was on Babylon Bee's show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvGnw1sHh9M 2.4 million views in last 3 months. In this video they in detail discuss the problem with political banning. 2 months later, Babylon Bee got banned off twitter for a joke. Clear political banning and violation of section 230.

For the record Babylon Bee is not banned, they can unlock their account any time by deleting a Tweet that jokingly gives a "man of the year award" to a real individual transwoman by name.

Re: Former officials say big tech monopoly power is vital to national security

#124

Post by tomrod »

bavell wrote: post #113
tomrod wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. But interfering with election proceedings, never mind being encouraged to kill the people charged with finalizing those proceedings, could lend to chaos and give incumbents (who are stocking the chaos) opportunities to seize control -- an effective coup. Don't confuse tools with crafters.

I hear you, but as soon as anyone "siezed control" they would be summarily thrown out in the mud and made a laughing stock by the entirety of the nation. Don't let the tiny vocal minority of fools chanting election fraud trick you into thinking regular folks would go along with some half-baked coup attempt - they'd be met with laughter and scorn. I've discussed this at length with friends and family, some of whom hav…

Ah yes, "it could never happen here."

But if they're in nominal control of the military, and have 40% of the country expressing a modicum of sympathy, then you let loose a pretty dangerous situation.

Re: Former officials say big tech monopoly power is vital to national security

#125

Post by syrrim »

jmyeet wrote: post #61

So there are 3 ways the government could influence Big Tech: 1. Infiltration. An agent or asset could be in a position of power to enact desired policies and changes, provide a backdoor or whatever; 2. Jurisdiction. The platform falls under US jurisdiction so is subject to various forms of law enforcement, secret or otherwise. National Security Letters, FISA warrants, pen registers, that sort of thing; and 3. Propaga…

To say that the US is in any way responsible for Ukraine is to deny ukraine agency. They are caught between a lion and a bear. They could reject the aid of the lion, but that would throw them into the hands of the bear. They choose to accept US help in their defense, but that makes them vulnerable to US invasion. This is a choice they made, and they bare the consequences. The US in offering that help might have sought to anger russia, but they left it to the ukrainians to decide whether to follow through.

Fundamentally, russia had no interest in allowing ukraine to be an independent country. US aid forestalled an invasion, and made the ultimate invasion a fairer fight, but it wasn't the cause of it.

Re: Former officials say big tech monopoly power is vital to national security

#126

Post by Apocryphon »

bilbo0s wrote: post #117
helen___keller wrote: post #44

I'm sure if it was on the table, intelligence and national security officials would issue a jointly signed letter that implementing a "Great Firewall" in America is necessary for national security. Luckily, these people don't get a say in what congress does. I will continue to vote for legislators who advocate busting tech monopolies.

That makes one vote, unfortunately, it doesn't matter. The set of people who vote on tech issues is dwarfed by the set of people who vote based on what "team" the candidate is on. That's simple reality, and it's not changing anytime soon. If we want real change, we'll have to start paying the large "campaign contributions" that the organizations on the other side pay. It's a horrible thing to say, but that's how the…

This is an issue with bipartisan support. TFA itself mentions legislation with backing from both parties.

Re: Former officials say big tech monopoly power is vital to national security

#127

Post by Yoric »

helen___keller wrote: post #44

I'm sure if it was on the table, intelligence and national security officials would issue a jointly signed letter that implementing a "Great Firewall" in America is necessary for national security. Luckily, these people don't get a say in what congress does. I will continue to vote for legislators who advocate busting tech monopolies.

Didn't the Trump admin basically suggest this? Except the Great Firewall included most Western countries.

I forgot how it was called. Something like "Safe Internet"?

Re: Former officials say big tech monopoly power is vital to national security

#128

Post by curuinor »

syrrim wrote: post #125
jmyeet wrote: post #61

So there are 3 ways the government could influence Big Tech: 1. Infiltration. An agent or asset could be in a position of power to enact desired policies and changes, provide a backdoor or whatever; 2. Jurisdiction. The platform falls under US jurisdiction so is subject to various forms of law enforcement, secret or otherwise. National Security Letters, FISA warrants, pen registers, that sort of thing; and 3. Propaga…

To say that the US is in any way responsible for Ukraine is to deny ukraine agency. They are caught between a lion and a bear. They could reject the aid of the lion, but that would throw them into the hands of the bear. They choose to accept US help in their defense, but that makes them vulnerable to US invasion. This is a choice they made, and they bare the consequences. The US in offering that help might have sough…

surely america's the eagle, and the brits are lions? heraldry is ancient and the US has got some, surprisingly enough

Re: Former officials say big tech monopoly power is vital to national security

#129

Post by pessimizer »

syrrim wrote: post #125
jmyeet wrote: post #61

So there are 3 ways the government could influence Big Tech: 1. Infiltration. An agent or asset could be in a position of power to enact desired policies and changes, provide a backdoor or whatever; 2. Jurisdiction. The platform falls under US jurisdiction so is subject to various forms of law enforcement, secret or otherwise. National Security Letters, FISA warrants, pen registers, that sort of thing; and 3. Propaga…

To say that the US is in any way responsible for Ukraine is to deny ukraine agency. They are caught between a lion and a bear. They could reject the aid of the lion, but that would throw them into the hands of the bear. They choose to accept US help in their defense, but that makes them vulnerable to US invasion. This is a choice they made, and they bare the consequences. The US in offering that help might have sough…

> To say that the US is in any way responsible for Ukraine is to deny ukraine agency. They are caught between a lion and a bear.

But somehow you're excusing the lion.

Re: Former officials say big tech monopoly power is vital to national security

#130

Post by pessimizer »

spamizbad wrote: post #45
incomingpain wrote: post #2

On april 17th I made the prediction that the US government was in control of twitter for probably this reason. I got flagged for this. A day later a bunch of former intelligence people basically said this is a good idea. That's funny to me.

Former intelligence people churn out all sorts of goofy takes in an attempt to build their brand. They’re also all over the spectrum depending on what audience they’re chasing. Not that much difference than any other media influencer or substack author. It's ultimately a free speech issue. You can't demand people to self-censor because their previous employment places unjustified credibility their nonsensical views.…

> Former intelligence people churn out all sorts of goofy takes in an attempt to build their brand.

Former intelligence people churn out all sorts of goofy takes because they're paid to, and after those goofy takes have been blasted by every corporate media outlet 24 hours a day for a month or two, they transform from goofy takes into orthodoxies that you could be fired for denying.

Post reply on HN