Slashdot Mirror
Latest WikiLeaks Reveal Suggests Facebook Is Too Close For Comfort With Clinton (hothardware.com)
MojoKid writes: As we quickly approach the November 8th elections, email leaks from the Clinton camp continue to loom over the presidential candidate. The latest data dump from WikiLeaks shines a light on emails between Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta and Facebook Chief Operating Officer, Sheryl Sandberg. In one email exchange, dated June 6th, 2015, Sandberg expresses her desire for Clinton to become president, writing to Podesta, "And I still want HRC to win badly. I am still here to help as I can." While that was a private exchange, Sandberg also made her zest for seeing Clinton as the 45th President of the United States publicly known in a Facebook post on July 28th of this year. None of that is too shocking when you think about it. Sandberg has every right to endorse whichever candidate she wants for president. However, a later exchange between Sandberg and Podesta showed that Mark Zuckerberg was looking to get in on the action a bit, and perhaps curry favor with Podesta and the Clinton camp in shaping public policy. Donald Trump has long claimed that Clinton is too cozy with big businesses, and one cannot dismiss the fact that Facebook has a global user base of 1.7 billion users. When you toss in the fact that Facebook came under fire earlier this year for allegedly suppressing conservative news outlets in the Trending News bar, questions begin to arise about Facebook's impartiality in the political race. The report also notes that Sandberg is at the top of the list when it comes to picks for Treasury Secretary, if Clinton wins the election. In an interview with Politico, David Segal, executive director for Demand Progress, said "[Sandberg] is a proxy for this growing problem that is the hegemony of five to ten major Silicon Valley platforms." Lina Khan, a fellow with the Open Markets Program at the New American think tank adds: "If a senior Cabinet member is from Facebook, at worst it could directly interfere [in antitrust actions]. But even in the best of cases there's a real worry that it will have a chilling effect on good-faith antitrust efforts to scrutinize potential anti-competitive implications of dominant tech platforms."
Both sides!!!1!?!!!
Thiel gave $1.25M to a candidate who'd just had it revealed he has serious problems with women (to put a politically correct spin on it), who is/was telling people he wouldn't accept the results of the election if he loses, and who previously has supported violence against his opponents, who is threatening legal sanctions against his opponents and the press, and who has engaged in racial scapegoating and in dehumanizing minorities.
Clinton has done none of those things (with the possible exception of one dubious comment about "predators" aimed at criminals in the 1990s that she's since apologized for.) So yeah, even though we don't like Clinton very much, we absolutely reserve the right to be angry that someone's response to a candidate boasting they can sexually assault women and get away with it is to give him money.
If Thiel had given money to Jeb Bush, nobody would have bat an eyelid. Nobody was angry when numerous billionaires gave Romney, McCain, or Bush Jr lots of money at the last few elections either. The fact you can't tell the difference between donating to Trump and donating to those guys or Clinton suggests you've been living under a rock this election campaign - or else actually think there's nothing wrong with sexual assault, opposing democratic elections (and supporting violence in politics), silencing critics, and attacking minorities.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Wrong group. The New American is indeed a magazine published by the John Birch Society, as clearly stated on their web site . However, the original poster made an error. Lina Khan is a fellow in a program run by The New America Foundation , which was founded in 1999. According to Soucewatch, the New America Foundation received over $6 million through 2013 from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and lesser amounts from other foundations. https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
Yes, it is. The scumminess or non-scumminess of the source is not relevant to the strength of their argument. If they are scum, it may be more likely that they have made false arguments, but it is not guaranteed, and the proper counter is to root out the falsity of their arguments.