« prev   random   next »


Big Tech Fights Election Interference By Interfering In Election

By Patrick follow Patrick   2020 Oct 16, 8:30am 70 views   2 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    


U.S.—Big tech companies like Facebook and Twitter have successfully prevented other parties from interfering in the United States' upcoming presidential election by interfering in the election themselves.

From nagging people to vote and curating their own election information as the only source of legitimate voting information for their users to squashing stories that would hurt the candidates they like and locking out conservatives from their social media accounts, big tech companies are working hard to ensure that they're the only ones who are allowed to influence the election results this year.

"In order to make sure no one interferes in the election, we will be interfering in the election," said Mark Zuckerberg. "It's the only way to make sure nobody can meddle in the election this time around."

"Election interference? Not on our watch," said Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. "Well, I mean, our election interference, yes. But not the other guy's. Only approved election interference will be accepted on our platforms."

Just then, Dorsey's phone rang.

"Oh, hey, Joe!" he said. "Yeah, we squashed the story for you. No prob. Yeah, we got you, fam!"
1   Fortwaynemobile   ignore (3)   2020 Oct 16, 8:47am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Lol, sadly true too
2   Patrick   ignore (1)   2020 Oct 16, 9:08am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      


Hunter’s family is his only asset. How else did someone with no special skills manage to collect such huge payments from foreign companies with deep interests in US policy? He has no knowledge of Ukraine or China, no experience in energy or banking, and a crack pipe full of personal problems. So, how exactly did he get rich?

It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to figure out the answer. Joe Biden himself could figure it out. The money was meant to open doors in the Obama administration and potentially a future Biden one. It was meant to inform mid-level US bureaucrats and diplomats that these companies had very powerful connections. The message: your bosses will be happy if you meet with these fine folks and even happier if you can help them.

Most of Hunter’s payments came from a corrupt Ukrainian energy producer, Burisma, and from multiple Chinese firms, all closely connected with the ruling Communist party. These payments were made when Hunter’s father was vice president, assigned primary responsibility for US foreign policy toward Ukraine and China, or after he left office and was considered a frontrunner to retake the White House. ...

This logic here is simple: outsiders purchase access and influence from insiders who sell it. That has long been the story of Washington lobbying and revolving-door politics, which grows in tandem with the size and scope of the federal government. Economists call it ‘rent-seeking behavior’.

The Clinton Foundation set a new standard for this rent-seeking. Its scale was unprecedented, and so was the cleverness of making it a tax-deductible charity. It worked smoothly when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and the favorite to succeed Barack Obama. How do we know the money funneled to the Foundation and the Clintons personally was designed to buy access and influence? Because it all dried up after Hillary lost. As politicians in the old Chicago Machine used to say, ‘don’t back no losers.’ ...

Twitter and Facebook have prevented dissemination of the Post story on their platforms. The reason, they say, is that they have not substantiated it themselves. They decided to block all users, including members of Congress and the President’s press secretary, from sharing links to these published stories. Big Tech Knows Best. ...

Why did Twitter and Facebook blackout news about Hunter Biden? The obvious answer is that those companies have a dog in the fight, and they are walking behind him with a giant pooper-scooper. It’s impossible to say if they picked that dog for ideological or financial reasons. Perhaps both. Most employees favor Biden, while higher-level executives want to preserve their networks of political power and influence. Both motives point in the same direction.

Please write p@patrick.net if you would like to register to comment

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions