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

Post by refurb » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 2:38 PM UTC

archontes wrote: post #57

I think Greenwald's characterization of the letter's contents is a bit disingenuous. The letter makes the claim that recently proposed legislation that would enforce non-discriminatory access would do so in a way that would include foreign adversaries. Greenwald takes that and elevates the claim to, "Any attempts to restrict Big Tech's monopolistic power would therefore undermine the U.S. fight against Moscow." The l…

Post by bavell » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 2:40 PM UTC

tomrod wrote: post #47

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.

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…

Post by giraffe_lady » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 2:42 PM UTC

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…

Post by superturkey650 » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 2:47 PM UTC

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…

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 2:49 PM UTC

yonaguska wrote: post #66

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 Intel people are a necessary tool of the current Intel community. I forget which project veritas recording caught this- but a journalist was caught stating that they get their information from former Intel people that talk to current Intel officials to get around rules preventing current Intel officials from leaking information to journalists, we have a problem. And we've had a serious problem as this behavior…