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

Facebook paid Republican strategy firm to malign TikTok

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 324 posts

Re: Facebook paid Republican strategy firm to malign TikTok

#251

Post by bostonsre »

dqpb wrote: post #233
numair wrote: post #193

In case you think this is some esoteric issue involving kids’ stuff — keep in mind that the founder of TikTok was one of the most balanced voices within China, who argued that the country needed to engage with the West in a healthier manner. Zuckerberg et al and their incessant lobbying for that TikTok ban basically vaporized that guy’s pull within China, which eliminated a super-valuable asset for the West. So, yeah…

> Facebook continues to be the single greatest threat to Western society outside of Russia. No it’s not. The greatest threat to any society is its own ineptitude.

Doesn't facebook make it a lot easier for inept viewpoints and thoughts to gain traction and impact society more easily? Facebook is the gun, not the trigger man.

Re: Facebook paid Republican strategy firm to malign TikTok

#252

Post by spoonjim »

numair wrote: post #193

In case you think this is some esoteric issue involving kids’ stuff — keep in mind that the founder of TikTok was one of the most balanced voices within China, who argued that the country needed to engage with the West in a healthier manner. Zuckerberg et al and their incessant lobbying for that TikTok ban basically vaporized that guy’s pull within China, which eliminated a super-valuable asset for the West. So, yeah…

LOL. The single greatest threat to Western society is Western society itself. Declining fertility, mass immigration at the border but brutally hard immigration for high skill workers, civil wars over pointless culture war issues, and the destruction of the social norms that once held us together. But go blame Facebook if you want.

Re: Facebook paid Republican strategy firm to malign TikTok

#253

Post by Stupulous »

JadeNB wrote: post #97
ciupicri wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What "yellow peril"?

The focus on Asia, specifically China, as a uniquely threatening force: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Peril .

Is China not a uniquely threatening force? They have the second largest GDP, the second-most expensive military with the most personnel, considerable influence over other important Asian countries, and a major role in manufacturing the world's products, and they continue to rapidly expand across all of those facets. They are very much in opposition to Liberal values (free speech, democracy, privacy), and they are somewhat aligned with other US adversaries (Russia, North Korea).

In 1910, I'd absolutely attribute focus on China to racism. Today, if I were to rank the biggest threats to US for the coming decades, I would put China in distant first place. But I'm no geopolitics expert, am I missing something?

Re: Facebook paid Republican strategy firm to malign TikTok

#254

Post by scotuswroteus »

nmilo wrote: post #137

What is a "Republican strategy firm?" A consulting firm with the Republican party as one of their clients? What's the point of making "Republican" so prominent in the article? Is it just to use the negative connotation most WP readers have about the Republican party to malign Facebook a little more? It seems like we're just spectating an op-ed war, and discussing this article as if there's any meaning to it other tha…

"Spectating an op-ed war" is a super weird way of saying "negative opinion about Facebook." Opeds are for reading. WP is a left leaning outlet. No war is going on here, and reading an oped isn't spectating a war.

Re: Facebook paid Republican strategy firm to malign TikTok

#255

Post by Melatonic »

kmlx wrote: post #240
numair wrote: post #193

In case you think this is some esoteric issue involving kids’ stuff — keep in mind that the founder of TikTok was one of the most balanced voices within China, who argued that the country needed to engage with the West in a healthier manner. Zuckerberg et al and their incessant lobbying for that TikTok ban basically vaporized that guy’s pull within China, which eliminated a super-valuable asset for the West. So, yeah…

> Facebook continues to be the single greatest threat to Western society outside of Russia. this statement is both hyperbolic and naive at the same time.

Hyperbolic for sure but I do not think it is naive at all. Facebook has proven many times over they are basically the Mafia of Silicon Valley and nothing they say should be trusted or taken at face value.

That being said there are many other threats to western society and while many or most of those will exploit Facebook as much as they can for influence they will continue to exist should Facebook fall.

Re: Facebook paid Republican strategy firm to malign TikTok

#256

Post by throwawaygh »

polyomino wrote: post #244
boomboomsubban wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And further in Mark Penn's Wikipedia article >Penn met with Trump in February and November 2019 to give him advice on his 2020 re-election strategy. The company claims to be right wing, why would you deny it?

I'm not denying that they claim to be republican, but their actions do serve both parties. As such, I don't think their claim to be republican is particularly meaningful.

He worked for D's in 2008 and the firm was founded in 2015 with primarily R political cleintelle.

What's contradictory about a strategist who worked for Ds in 2008 and was working for Rs by 2016? Hell, there's a whole term describing the large set of people who made that shift in that exact time period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama%E2%80%93Trump_voters

Re: Facebook paid Republican strategy firm to malign TikTok

#257

Post by baryphonic »

nmilo wrote: post #137

What is a "Republican strategy firm?" A consulting firm with the Republican party as one of their clients? What's the point of making "Republican" so prominent in the article? Is it just to use the negative connotation most WP readers have about the Republican party to malign Facebook a little more? It seems like we're just spectating an op-ed war, and discussing this article as if there's any meaning to it other tha…

My guess would be that Facebook hired a GOP firm for two reasons. 1) The national mood is leaning significantly toward the GOP, with major Republican gains likely in both the House and Senate (potentially supermajorities in both chambers). Democrats are so weak right now that they can't get anything done, so may as well follow the trends. TikTok isn't going to kill Facebook in nine months, so they can hold out till a Republican Congress in January. 2) The messaging is aligned with recent Republican victories or even just Democrat losses. The election in Virginia and the recall of the SF school board both highlight that Dems appear tone-dead with respect to protecting kids. (Even in FL, the Dems and media have essentially lied by maligning the new law restricting public schools from exposing K-through-3 students to sexual content as a bill banning anyone from saying the word "gay." This dishonesty is only necessary and effective because Democrats are exceptionally weak at protecting kids.)

I doubt the use of a GOP firm reflects anything beyond a desire to persuade Republican voters and lawmakers.

Re: Facebook paid Republican strategy firm to malign TikTok

#258

Post by vixen99 »

bostonsre wrote: post #250
MuffinFlavored wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won't pretend to know all of the details but this comes off as kind of conspiracy-theory. Why is Zuckerberg the boogieman? He just wants to run his company well and get as many eyeballs on paid advertisements as possible... right? Why is there some notion that he wants to push either a liberal or conservative agenda internationally? It's near impossible to moderate a billion people posting crap on a social media pl…

> He just wants to run his company well and get as many eyeballs on paid advertisements as possible... right? Yes, I would definitely agree that this is the case and I think that is a large part of the problem. The Machiavellian ends justifying the means equates to him not caring about the negative impacts that he has on society while trying to attract the most eyeballs possible.

Aren't those negative impacts on society a matter for government? Basically any company will 'try it on' until it's stopped. And 'stopping' is what governments are about, I used to think. It doesn't seem to happen and it's not surprising that some have written darkly about the marriage of huge corporations with government and its dire consequences.

Re: Facebook paid Republican strategy firm to malign TikTok

#260

Post by KarlKemp »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #224
numair wrote: post #193

In case you think this is some esoteric issue involving kids’ stuff — keep in mind that the founder of TikTok was one of the most balanced voices within China, who argued that the country needed to engage with the West in a healthier manner. Zuckerberg et al and their incessant lobbying for that TikTok ban basically vaporized that guy’s pull within China, which eliminated a super-valuable asset for the West. So, yeah…

I won't pretend to know all of the details but this comes off as kind of conspiracy-theory. Why is Zuckerberg the boogieman? He just wants to run his company well and get as many eyeballs on paid advertisements as possible... right? Why is there some notion that he wants to push either a liberal or conservative agenda internationally? It's near impossible to moderate a billion people posting crap on a social media pl…

Facebook has consistently disappointed anyone working on any of these issues, from Islamic State recruitment to Myanmar's ethnic violence. Because young people in tech are generally thought to be smart and happy, i. e. Democrats, these failing have been interpreted as growing pains and various lapses in skill or judgement.

The idea has, however, been catching on that Zuckerberg may just be a Greenwald-Democrat, i. e. someone going through a process of alienation in increasingly schizophrenic episodes.

Combine bad faith with the power of Facebook and it's possible to consider that dangerous. The superlative feels strange indeed, but can you think of any other credible alternative, especially outside of (party) politics?

Post reply on HN