- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
When called out on it, they then doubled down on this dogshit take: https://archive.ph/quYyb
When called out on it, they then doubled down on this dogshit take: https://archive.ph/quYyb
Read what he wrote. He said Dems used to be for the little guy and the Republicans were for big business but now the tables have turned…
So now the Republicans, party of billionaires, is for the little guy and Dems are for big business?
Controversial no doubt.
How is that controversial? Harris lost because she was so fucking pro-corporate. Same thing happened to Hilary.
They’re both pro-corporate parties, and breaking up the trusts is progress.
They lost because they tried to convince trumpers to vote for them, ignoring everyone else.
No, they lost because they were so obsessed with telling us how bad Trump is they completely ignored their failed economy, and that people would be voting for someone to do better with the economy.
Yeah, but surveillance is also high on the fascist agenda, so you’d think a company pitching privacy would be more concerned about approving of anything they do.
Surveillance is different than suppression. Yes, they usually go hand-in-hand, but the issue everyone was up in arms about is the censorship part, by the surveillance part.
True, but if you’re trying to tell me that the Reps are better on the issue of surveillance or censorship, I’d like to see some evidence. Shilling them as the party of the “little guy” is just dumb.
He didn’t say Trump has good policies on surveillance. The two corporate parties in the US are terrible on privacy.
He said the tables had completely turned, that the Reps were now supporting the small guy. It’s idiotic at best, dishonest at worst, to assume that such praise will change anything about the fact that the incoming US regime will seek to undermine Proton’s stated objective and prime selling point. Even if they somehow followed through on those antitrust expectations, I have no doubt it would double back into serving corporate dragons in the end.
The tables have turned.
The shitty center-right corporate party that claimed to be against big business has switched with the far-right party that claims to be pro-consumer.
Both the most popular US political parties are terrible. When either one appoints someone who isn’t captured, its a good thing.
How is that the tables turning? That would imply that the far-right party that claimed to be pro-consumer had become the center-right instead of going even further right. The table has moved, not turned.
Besides, the claim in the topical tweet was that the Dems had been the party of the “little guy”, whereas you paint them as the corporate shills we both agree they’ve been for a while now.
My argument isn’t that the Dems haven’t gotten worse, it’s that the Reps have become even worse. Unfortunately, inaction doesn’t shift the Overton Window, and the Reps’ position should long have been so untenable that a right-drift by the Dems would have opened a space to their left. But that isn’t what happened, and pretending that this is a change for the better is short-sighted.
Remember that Antitrust proceedings don’t hinge on a single General Attorney prosecuting them, but on the courts. A noble knight taking charge doesn’t help if they run up against a stacked wall of pro-corporate judges. The endorsement this post is about is hollow.
Endorsement? What do you think he endorsed in this post? Because he certainly did not endorse Trump or the Republican party.
Also, both parties have gotten worse. Did you not see the Democrats saying that they were pro fracking and genocide a few months ago?
But, on the issue being discussed (antitrust) it does appear that the tables have turned. Well, at least for this pick. Probably, as you say, any of her actions will be blocked for billionaires who paid off Trump (as would certainly be the case for the Dems too)
“10 years ago, Republicans were the party of big business and Dems stood for the little guy, but today the tables have completely turned.”
This implies he thinks the Reps are now the party of the little guy, which in the context of going after Big Tech sounds like an endorsement. This isn’t a “The Dems have failed us, but maybe the Reps will come through for once” in acknowledgement that the Reps are at least just as deep in corporate pockets, it’s an implication that the coin has flipped entirely.
“[T]he current antitrust actions against Big Tech were started under the first Trump admin.”
Again, sounds like he thinks rhe Trump admin did well, or at least seems to defend them.
Oh no, I was completely agreeing with you on that. That’s my point: the table hasn’t turned, it has moved.
The pick is meaningless until it produces results. If I make a gesture of donating to charity, except that charity just ends up lining my pockets again, my generosity is a farce to make me look good without actually sacrificing much. In this case, the pick is a wonderful way to pretend he’s doing something good, while…
…knowing that nothing will actually change as long as his cronies sit on the courts.
Hence: I’ll believe that the tables have turned when that turn becomes visible rather than a vapid gesture.
And a CEO should most certainly know these mechanisms better than me, not to mention all the other points he’s so conveniently ignoring.
… Are you seriously claiming the dem party is not a party of billionaires? Soros? Gates? Bloomberg? Hoffman?? I could go on.
What little business policies have Dems put in place? Seems to me the biggest dem states absolutely demolished small businesses during COVID, and have not done a gd thing to rebuild them.
Bush-era republicans haven’t done a gd thing for small businesses either, don’t get me wrong, but it’s so dumb to say the Dem party is for the little guy.
Republicans literally have a billionaire as their emperor with a the richest man in the world as his advisor. Dems are playing recess tag football vs a Republicans varsety 5A when it comes to supporting corporations.
Literally none of that has anything to do with reality.