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

71–80 of 235 posts

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

#71

Post by aaronsimpson »

cryptica wrote: post #65
JKCalhoun wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mainstream media is feeding us constant lies... No one reporting that apparently. I agree with some of your points but accusations like that without any room for nuance do not resonate with me. > 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. And I've seen convincing arguments claiming the exact opposite: that d…

> No one reporting that apparently. Just some things that the mainstream media lied about: - The NIH having funded gain of function research in Wuhan Labs. - The mortality rate of COVID19 (they ignored obvious issues with data collection and flawed incentives which over-counted deaths and under-counted cases). - The effectiveness of COVID19 vaccines (several outlets initially said that 1 dose would be enough to get 9…

What sort of complete moron would consider the 2008 bank bailout (what I assume you're referring to) as a crime? How is TARP and the repurchasing of toxic bank assets for the stabilization of the US/global financial system, which was fully paid back to the taxpayer with interest, a crime? Unless you think we should've just let the financial system melt into oblivion?

It's this populist rhetoric of people being mad at shit they don't know anything about.

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

#72

Post by tomrod »

phkahler wrote: post #55
tomrod wrote: post #47

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. It was certainly a dangerous mob driven by Trump and cronies intending to interfere with the US election proceedings without justifiable cause beyond pseudo-creedal feelings that somewhere, somehow, the election was sto…

Yeah, one group of "protestors" can take over a small section of a city, push the authorities out, loot and riot. But another "protest" gets a little out of hand and it's an attempt to overthrow the government. Trump lost, can nobody see that continuing to talk about him is counterproductive? On both sides!

> Yeah, one group of "protestors" can take over a small section of a city, push the authorities out, loot and riot.

If you read my prior comment, you'll note a distinct lack of discussion regarding this unrelated topic.

> But another "protest" gets a little out of hand and it's an attempt to overthrow the government.

Correct. The mob that actually performed the violent protest may not have come to the Capitol that day to overthrow the government, but the people spurring them on had other designs. Calling for the murder of the government official performing their duty is a key tell for that; to my understanding there is further evidence beyond incendiary and violent rhetoric.

But please, let's stay on topic instead of deflecting to the ills of Antifa and her counter-agitators. That conversation just reinforces the backfire effect since the trivial triggering conversation challenges deeply held worldviews.[0]

[0] https://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe_clean

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

#73

Post by thorRay8383 »

incomingpain wrote: post #56
spamizbad wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. They’re also all over the spectrum depending on what audience they’re chasing. You're right but is this one a goofy take? Or is there a real something here?

What’s real is Greenwald poetically desires a world organized by his principles but has neither the skills or imagination to offer more than paranoid Big Brother scenario.

Technology based mesh networks are not going anywhere. Unless the public itself revolts against the state it will always stick its fingers in them.

One planet, one reality on the ground. If people don’t want big government they need to replace it.

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

#74

Post by refurb »

kornhole wrote: post #63

Frances Haugen, the supposed Facebook whistleblower, slipped up in her 60 minutes interview and revealed that she works for US intelligence. The effort she was employed to advance is acceptance of more censorship of Meta and the like. Conspicuously absent from the publicly promoted discussion was any mention of the free alternatives such as the fediverse. 'The Social Dilemma' movie had similar objectives and narrativ…

She disappeared pretty damn quickly huh?

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

#75

Post by Aunche »

cryptica wrote: post #15

It's such a financially convenient line of thinking. It's absolute nonsense. Both at face value and once you dig into it. Mainstream media is feeding us constant lies which work against our interests, destroy our ability to trust institutions and the government. Big Tech is clearly the biggest threat to our democracy. Before Big Tech, we did not have such problems. This new narrative is pure self-serving propaganda,…

>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 would occur. Right after WWII, Europe and Japan were desperate for capital to rebuild, so they were willing to exchange physical gold with made up paper, so it was free money while it lasted. If there were any real interest in maintaining a fiscal responsibility, they would have allowed investors to buy gold at the same price.

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

#76

Post by salawat »

willis936 wrote: post #27
lvl102 wrote: post #9

There is a reason why the agencies won’t strike down on tech monopolies. And rest assured, they never will.

It's Hanlon's razor, isn't it?

Hanlon's Razor is qiite rusty compared to Occam's, and it's self-evidentness is massively in question. It's more a crutch leaned on to lubricate interaction between executive decision makers than anything else.

Unfortunately, I've seen it cut the user more than the situation in my lifetime.

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

#77

Post by tomrod »

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…

> 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.

\o layperson here. My observation of January 6 was the people being punished were part of a hapless, mindless mob who believed the lies of kakistocrats playing on their economic insecurities and political loyalties.

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

#78

Post by nemothekid »

incomingpain wrote: post #36
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You dont get to make the comment 'twitter is private, free speech only applies to government' because twitter == government. it's true, twitter == government but not twitter === government. Meaning that the conversion happens in the underlying JIT engine where government hacks twitter to do what it wants. So the idea is that you could make a first amendment complaint against the government for hacking twitter if it…

I get the complication of the position. Occams razor puts me back to the plain option that twitter is simply controlled by us gov.

I don’t understand how “Twitter is controlled by the government” is the simplest explanation. Do you actually use Twitter?

I feel like Twitter had an outsized representation along social media giants. It’s one of the smallest by MAU; and has a history of management problems. Isn’t occans razor here that is just a poorly run company?

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

#79

Post by notacoward »

incomingpain wrote: post #36
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You dont get to make the comment 'twitter is private, free speech only applies to government' because twitter == government. it's true, twitter == government but not twitter === government. Meaning that the conversion happens in the underlying JIT engine where government hacks twitter to do what it wants. So the idea is that you could make a first amendment complaint against the government for hacking twitter if it…

I get the complication of the position. Occams razor puts me back to the plain option that twitter is simply controlled by us gov.

Occam's Razor has nothing to do with this, and its improper invocation is fallacious. Literally it means "do not multiply entities beyond necessity"; in practice it's also called the principle of parsimony, meaning that one should not assume a more complicated explanation when a simpler one will do. Positing a connection between Twitter and the US government, without supporting evidence but just because it "makes sense" - is anything but parsimonious. That remains true even if such a connection does eventually turn out to exist. "Do not attribute to malice that which is explained by incompetence" is likely to be the more applicable principle here.

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

#80

Post by paulpauper »

kornhole wrote: post #63

Frances Haugen, the supposed Facebook whistleblower, slipped up in her 60 minutes interview and revealed that she works for US intelligence. The effort she was employed to advance is acceptance of more censorship of Meta and the like. Conspicuously absent from the publicly promoted discussion was any mention of the free alternatives such as the fediverse. 'The Social Dilemma' movie had similar objectives and narrativ…

that story was such a big deal half a year ago to vanishing completely from people's attention
Post reply on HN