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

151–160 of 235 posts

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

#151

Post by throwawayboise »

TrispusAttucks wrote: post #82
tomrod wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

"The whiskey tax was repealed in the early 1800s during the Jefferson administration. Historian Carol Berkin argues that the episode, in the long run, strengthened US nationalism because the people appreciated how well Washington handled the rebels without resorting to tyranny." Let's hope the government maintains it's historical position of not resorting to tyranny and the country grows stronger as a result.

Urm... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

The Bonus Army was a group of 43,000 demonstrators – made up of 17,000 veterans of the United States in World War I, together with their families and affiliated groups – who gathered in Washington, D.C. in mid-1932 to demand early cash redemption of their service bonus certificates.

On July 28, 1932, U.S. Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property. Washington police met with resistance, shot at the protestors, and 2 veterans were wounded and later died. President Herbert Hoover then ordered the U.S. Army to clear the marchers' campsite. Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur commanded a contingent of infantry and cavalry, supported by six tanks. The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, and their shelters and belongings burned.

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

#152

Post by jimmygrapes »

curuinor wrote: post #128
syrrim wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think Russia has more claim to the eagle for heraldry purposes, although maybe two-headed eagles don't count as the same species.

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

#153

Post by Mikeb85 »

rufusroflpunch wrote: post #145
Mikeb85 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You see this at the huge backlash you get, even here among relatively educated and informed commenters, when you dare to suggest that the US bears some responsibility for Ukraine's predicament even though Russia is of course wholly responsible for an unjustifiable invasion. Only 1 country is killing Ukrainians: Russia. There's no US troops massacring and raping Ukrainians... The only thing the US is responsible for…

This viewpoint is simplistic to the point of absurdity.

And your comment is useless and adds nothing.

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

#154

Post by mikevm »

jmyeet wrote: post #141
mikevm wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You see this at the huge backlash you get, even here among relatively educated and informed commenters, when you dare to suggest that the US bears some responsibility for Ukraine's predicament even though Russia is of course wholly responsible for an unjustifiable invasion. Here's the thing, the people who keep saying that US bears responsibility for Ukraine's predicament are wrong. I'm Russian so I follow various…

We can agree the whole "denazification" argument is complete BS. That's propaganda for domestic consumption. As for Putin having eyes on Ukraine, let me argue it this way: NATO was never going to allow Ukraine to join. Germany, in particular, was always going to veto it. So even if you think that Putin had his eyes on Ukraine, NATO was never going to be a solution. So what do you do? You get Ukraine to adopt a policy…

> So what do you do? You get Ukraine to adopt a policy of neutrality similar to Finland, Sweden or Switzerland.

This is all dandy, but how can you do that when Putin breaks previous obligations by invading Crimea and the Donbas?

See https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-parliament-abandons-neutrali...

Putin wants Ukraine either to be part of Russia, or as a vassal/subservient state. You don't even realize how compromised Ukraine was by the FSB. Politicians, media figures, etc... all on the bankroll of the FSB to the tune of billions of dollars. In a way, this war has allowed these rats to be exposed and has unified the Ukrainians even more so as a people. Neutrality would've just prolonged the suffering and allowed Putin to destabilize Ukraine even further.

There's also some interesting discussion here: https://www.russiamatters.org/analysis/nato-or-bust-why-do-u...

> However, the motives behind Russia’s actions toward Ukraine could extend far beyond traditional security interests. Unlike Ukraine, neither Austria nor Finland was viewed by Moscow as part of “the same historical and spiritual place” as Russia, as part of “a single whole.” Hence, it was easier for the Kremlin to accept their statehood, including their right to integrate with Europe politically and economically. It is unlikely that Moscow would ever acquiesce to the same latitude in Ukraine’s foreign policy. As Russian President Vladimir Putin has stressed, “true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia.” Without a common understanding of what neutrality means, Russia would then be even more likely to interfere in Ukraine as long as it interprets any of its foreign policy actions as hostile. Furthermore, in the absence of outside security guarantees or military cooperation with the West, Ukraine could be perceived as sufficiently weak to be coerced to Russia’s liking.

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

#155

Post by Supermancho »

rufusroflpunch wrote: post #145
Mikeb85 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You see this at the huge backlash you get, even here among relatively educated and informed commenters, when you dare to suggest that the US bears some responsibility for Ukraine's predicament even though Russia is of course wholly responsible for an unjustifiable invasion. Only 1 country is killing Ukrainians: Russia. There's no US troops massacring and raping Ukrainians... The only thing the US is responsible for…

This viewpoint is simplistic to the point of absurdity.

I assume you are refrring to the laughable statement:

> The only thing the US is responsible for is that they could have maybe threatened Russia enough to not invade.

as if that wasnt a factor (by proxy via NATO) initiating Russian aggression.

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

#156

Post by BuckRogers »

jmyeet wrote: post #131
syrrim wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 No, it doesn't. This war has highlighted just how simplistic people are in that someone has to be the bad guy and someone has to be the good guy (hint: the US is always the good guy). Any suggestion that more than one party can bear responsibility or blame invites histrionics about victim-blaming. The US friend zoned Ukraine, basical…

There was blame to go around, until Russia invaded Ukraine today and in 2014. Now it's all on them. Otherwise you're saying the woman with the short skirt asked or deserved to be raped and murdered. Which is never true.

Mistakes were made, but none of them justify the genocide in Ukraine. Nothing even justified an invasion at all.

If you can't see true evil and who the bad guy is, you're definitely part of the problem. I hope no women in your family are raped by men with logic similar to your own, because you'll be blaming them.

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

#157

Post by incomingpain »

nemothekid wrote: post #132
incomingpain wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>ccam's Razor has nothing to do with this, and its improper invocation is fallacious. My mistake. Maybe I can't think of the one I'm trying to think of. I don't need a name or rule really. Philosophically speaking, if you have a few competing ideas and no way to come to a conclusion. The simplest explanation is the best one to go with. > Positing a connection between Twitter and the US government, without supporting…

> The S&P500 is full of zombies? Is this seriously happening? wow. I haven't seen anyone talking about this. What the hell happened? People have been talking about it[1]; it's just that Elon hasn't so it doesn't end up in the media hype cycle. The S&P 500 is really just the 5 big megacap stocks. That's what makes this Twitter so weird , as a company it's relatively unremarkable; it's not larger than Snapchat both in…

>People have been talking about it[1]; it's just that Elon hasn't so it doesn't end up in the media hype cycle. The S&P 500 is really just the 5 big megacap stocks.

This isn't it. I follow financial news, primarily financial post and economist, I havent seen anyone talk about this at all. It's crazy that I even thought to check on this. Obviously twitter being undefended was quite unusual, why would they all be this way?

In fact when I look at Microsoft and Apple... holy shit I haven't seen the problem that bad.

Meta isn't bad, but then again 500 billion market cap and pe ratio of 13? wtf? different problem altogether. People are clearly predicting huge crash on meta. No idea if that's coming.

Amazon isn't bad at all. Bezos is defending just as Musk is defending Tesla. I probably should go through all the S&p. I wonder if other stock markets are seeing this. UK and Canada obviously arent.

>Twitter the company, and Twitter the boogeyman are two seperate entities. If you read about Twitter from NYT headlines, maybe it makes sense they are government controlled. If you actually spend time on the platform you will find a platform that largely hasn't changed in the past 10 years, but still trying to wrangle it's political influence since the Arab spring days.

No that's not the problem. I dont think that the us gov is controlling anymore. When I checked tsx60 and ftse1000 there's no examples for at least the ones I checked. I admittedly didnt check them all.

I have never seen this before, it's not natural. I don't know what the terminology would be. Zombie is the wrong word. Of all my positions, Tyson is the only 1 that is bad like this; though I'm not exposed to the USA that much.

Arab spring days? Yes.

I expect it may even start the same way. Will it be a Nicholas McCrary?

Will it be food scarcity? Biden publicly said this will be the case.

Elon is way ahead of me in understanding the situation.

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

#159

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#160

Post by geranim0 »

rufusroflpunch wrote: post #145
Mikeb85 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You see this at the huge backlash you get, even here among relatively educated and informed commenters, when you dare to suggest that the US bears some responsibility for Ukraine's predicament even though Russia is of course wholly responsible for an unjustifiable invasion. Only 1 country is killing Ukrainians: Russia. There's no US troops massacring and raping Ukrainians... The only thing the US is responsible for…

This viewpoint is simplistic to the point of absurdity.

Sometimes I wonder if these types of comments are state sponsored
Post reply on HN