Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Democrats Facebook Businesses Communications Social Networks The Almighty Buck The Internet Politics

Latest WikiLeaks Reveal Suggests Facebook Is Too Close For Comfort With Clinton (hothardware.com) 437

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Latest WikiLeaks Reveal Suggests Facebook Is Too Close For Comfort With Clinton

Comments Filter:
  • by Maritz ( 1829006 ) on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @09:09AM (#53145453)
    What happened to the BoA materials? Did wikileaks not release them because they're not personally relevant to Assange and his own personal feuds?
  • So what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pauljlucas ( 529435 ) on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @09:10AM (#53145457) Homepage Journal
    Who says companies can't favor one candidate or party over the other. Fox News clearly favors republicans and that just seems to be accepted.
    • Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MFriis ( 4445501 ) on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @09:19AM (#53145531)
      I don't disagree with you. Corporate agendas are not rare. However i do think there is a difference between being blatantly in support of a candidate (which from the view of a humble european, like me, is the case with Fox News) and having a slightly favourable selection algorythm that favours one candidate. I don't know enough about the laws and regulations of the US to judge, but what facebook does seems close to subliminal marketing which the FCC revokes broadcast licences for. Is it too big a stretch to compare news nudging to subliminal messaging? I doubt the consumer knows they are being manipulated.
      • by Luthair ( 847766 )
        Do you really think Facebook has no republican employees and could keep some vast conspiracy hidden?
        • Do you really think Facebook has no republican employees and could keep some vast conspiracy hidden?

          Conspiracies involve few people but with incredible power over others - hence the head of Facebook over 1.7 BILLION people.

      • Re:So what? (Score:4, Informative)

        by bahwi ( 43111 ) on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @09:35AM (#53145629)

        I'm going to have to disagree, Fox's slogan was "Fair and Balanced" for a very long time. It may be obvious and blatant, but they deny it every chance they get.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by DirkDaring ( 91233 )

          You should start watching it then, because every 'take' I see that have both a republican and a democrat arguing against each other or getting their point of view.

          • Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by bahwi ( 43111 ) on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @09:45AM (#53145697)

            Yes, because having one token member from the other side (who is sometimes ill-informed, or unable to make a decent argument) and controlling the argument and questions and leading is very fair.

            So in your definition, because Trump did make the news, and his posts were on Facebook (hell, his TV station even premiered its first show on Facebook!) this is all moot because Facebook is incredibly fair and there is no favoritism... Yeah?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by JackieBrown ( 987087 )

          I think you need to actually watch it instead of go by what hufington post, politico and other liberal sites state.

          Fox news has a very large segment that is as anti-trump as you can get. Two prominent examples that come to mind are Shepard Smith and Megan Kelly.

          • That's because Fox is pro-Republican, and being pro-Republican and anti-Trump has a fair amount of crossover.

            Let's face it, Trump is the Republican candidate, but he is doing far and away more harm to the party than anyone else who ran for the nomination could have. For example, I don't care for Ted Cruz, and I think he'd probably be losing right now as well if he were the Republican candidate, but he, at least, doesn't flip out at 3 a.m. and go on Twitter rants, and he almost certainly wouldn't have been d

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Hilarious that you guys have one media outlet you throw out as being blatantly right while ignoring that every other one is blatantly left.

        • their news programming (all day until 5) is news proper. from 5 PM on its opinion. same holds true with cnn but for the other guys.
      • I don't know enough about the laws and regulations of the US to judge, but what facebook does seems close to subliminal marketing which the FCC revokes broadcast licences for.

        Not sure where you got that idea. There are no rules or laws regarding sublimal messaging. At one point the FCC issued a policy statement saying the use of subliminal perception is contrary to the public interest. That's pretty far from what you are asserting.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      This is such a shill response. The difference is Facebook isn't a news outlet. You watch Fox or CNN knowing that its right or left biased.

      Facebook welcomes people right, left, up, down, purple, green, magenta, and so on. Its an open platform for dialogue. If heads of that company are giving advantages to one candidate over another and are leveraging their platform to do so, or enforcing rules more strictly towards those with a different point of view, then that's what this article is referring to.

      When Biff

      • This is such a shill response. The difference is Facebook isn't a news outlet. You watch Fox or CNN knowing that its right or left biased.

        Facebook welcomes people right, left, up, down, purple, green, magenta, and so on. Its an open platform for dialogue. If heads of that company are giving advantages to one candidate over another and are leveraging their platform to do so, or enforcing rules more strictly towards those with a different point of view, then that's what this article is referring to.

        When Biff Tanner for President says the election is rigged, he doesn't mean voter fraud/rigging. He means the whole election process, campaigns, media coverage, etc.. to drown out opposing views, ignore the controversies about their person of choice, and further push a pre-determined collaborated narrative under the illusion of independent or neutral platforms. Vote manipulation happened within the primaries. Enough with this Russia crap already.

        Evidence has come out again and again that these emails were not altered (thank you, DKIM), and that James Clapper, the one who lied under oath about NSA domestic spying, and pushed the false narrative of WMD's, is the one saying that. Do you really think the Coast Guard, Department of Energy, DEA, US Marine Corps Intel, etc.. are supporting this claim despite being out of their scope? Russia seems to be the scapegoat that she loves to use over and over again, even against Bernie according to the leaks.

        Well now you know, Facebook is left/liberal biased (which was kind of obvvious before this stunning revalation) much like the overwhming majority of the tech sector. Get over it. They are doing nothing the right wing media and players like the Koch brothers haven't been doing for years.

        • Well now you know, Facebook is left/liberal biased (which was kind of obvvious before this stunning revalation) much like the overwhming majority of the tech sector. Get over it. They are doing nothing the right wing media and players like the Koch brothers haven't been doing for years.

          With the acknowledgement that the above may well be completely true, recently I've been flooded with unhinged Trump posts. From FB friends I'd never expect to see it from. So much so that for the first time I've had to unfollow somebody.

          For a long time prior to that I was seeing posts/shares from my left-leaning friends from high-school oh-so-long-ago. Which made sense since I came of age in the 70's in a very liberal part of the Northeast. So seeing liberal/progressive messages from my former classmate

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Fox News is (part of) a broadcaster. Plenty of competition so partisanship is acceptable.

      Facebook is a medium. No effective compeitition so partisanship is unacceptable.

      ( But I hope it works anyway :-} )

    • Of course, it's often a bad business decision to make one's political views public. Just ask the CEO of Chick Fil-A, for example.

      But sure, it wouldn't normally be a problem..... except with Facebook and other forms of social media, their purpose is supposed to be to give a voice to EVERYONE who wants to use it and contribute content. If that can't be done impartially, it means the site can't be used properly for its stated purpose. (If you have to worry that your content might get censored/deleted or someh

    • It's also not Facebook, it's a few top people at Facebook. And there are at least two top people at FB who are very publicly associated with Trump (albeit one has the self awareness and sense of decency to at least be embarrassed and ashamed about it.)

      This is a non-story, and like certain other non-stories (OMG! A low level Clinton staffer was caught spitballing ideas about how to demonstrate Trump supporters are violent!) it's an attempt to muddy the waters and get people to forget wide truths (Facebook

    • We're no longer a democracy, we've crossed the line into corpocracy.

      It is made much worse with the supreme court allowing mega-corps to spend massive amounts of money. Beyond that though, lobbyists should be made illegal, it is overt corruption. "Pass this measure for me and I'll host a fundraising event for you - how is that tolerated?

      If I were amending the constitution I would include:
      No campaign can spend more than $1million (adjusted for inflation) on advertising. (make them win debates, and give int

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @09:15AM (#53145493)

    All the media companies online and off-line, Paul Ryan and his Republican insiders, The DNC, all foreign governments except Russia and China. Women, Blacks, Mexicans, disabled people, ex soldiers, they're all plotting against Trump. Jeb Bush, big plotter, Ted Cruz and his sleazy push polls,Fox News and its clown announcers, CNN and their boring anti-trump panelists, Charles Koch and his puppets, MSBNC crazy crazy fraudsters, Marco De Rubio the joke phoney light weight, John Kasich the Absentee Governor who supports Mexico..... ALL PLOTTING!

    It's time for the non-Democrat, non-Republican, white, male, full-fit, but not military, who are not in the media, or online media, it's time for that MAJORITY to rise up and put Trump into power he so richly believes he deserves!

    Make America Great Again!

  • by sinij ( 911942 ) on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @09:15AM (#53145495)
    This illustrates the problem of virtual public spaces and real danger to freedom of speech and association that comes with digitization of all means of communications. Currently, FB and Twitter are free to censor political speech and push political agenda. You could argue that in 2016 as a politician you are effectively censored if you don't have access to FB and Twitter. This shouldn't be the case, insofar politics these should be considered virtual public spaces and any censorship of this kind should be disallowed.
  • Just like China (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ebonum ( 830686 ) on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @09:23AM (#53145563)

    In China, the people who control the media support the party. And the party makes sure the top people who control the media get rich.
    We are no different.

    • Re:Just like China (Score:5, Interesting)

      by meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @09:55AM (#53145759) Journal

      We don't have a state-run media, we have a media-run state. The massive corporations have similar interests (mass immigration for cheap labor, free trade, etc), they own the politicians and the media, the corps make the policy decisions, their politicians enact them and the media propagandizes to the people why things that are clearly not in their best interests like flooding the country with semi-retarded 3rd worlders are the good, moral things to do, citizen, and anyone who disagrees is an evil Nazi. This is how you conquer a nation, with very special episodes of Blossom.

      • Re:Just like China (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ooloorie ( 4394035 ) on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @10:34AM (#53146067)

        We don't have a state-run media, we have a media-run state.

        The distinction is pretty academic: when government becomes too powerful, media, police, politics, etc. all blur into one entity.

        The massive corporations have similar interests

        "The" massive corporations don't have much of a choice than to participate in this, because if they don't, their competitors will kill them via legal and legislative manipulation.

        Ultimately, the failure is always a failure to limit government power. Governmental power will always be abused, and the only way to limit that abuse is to limit how much power you give government.

        • Re:Just like China (Score:5, Insightful)

          by meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @10:40AM (#53146113) Journal

          Governmental power will always be abused, and the only way to limit that abuse is to limit how much power you give government.

          We used to have this document that listed the limited powers of the federal government and strictly forbade it from doing most everything else but nobody pays attention to that thing anymore.

          • Re:Just like China (Score:4, Informative)

            by ooloorie ( 4394035 ) on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @11:05AM (#53146309)

            We used to have this document that listed the limited powers of the federal government and strictly forbade it from doing most everything else but nobody pays attention to that thing anymore.

            It was a good idea, and it actually lasted quite a while in comparison to other nations. However, even the Founding Fathers were not optimistic that this was going to last forever. As Jefferson wrote:

            the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. . .] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.

  • by OzPeter ( 195038 ) on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @09:26AM (#53145573)

    I am being inundated with all sorts of pro-Trump posts by one of my friends. All the anti-Clinton conspiracy posts. Every damn one of them. Including one that was so bad that even Fox News published a retraction.

    So as far as I can tell FB isn't shaping much, otherwise they would have tweaked that mysterious algorithm that only shows you posts from people that they want you to see and then for everything else goes "What post? I don't see any post? What do you mean you saw a post 5 minutes ago and now you can't find it in your feed? No idea what you are talking about."

    • Yeah, it's unreal how many posts in my feed I get pushing a pro-Trump agenda, even from people who I know that I never in any way respond to anything they post. In fact, the crazier the post, it seems like it makes more likely to get a big push from Facebook. I remain appalled by a post a former classmate shared from another person who equated voting for Hillary Clinton to be identical to being a Jew "willingly" matching to the Nazi gas chambers in WWII. No joke. I have a policy that I don't post politi
      • so they are playing games. I get nothing but pro clinton and bernie stuff on my wall when i cant stand either of them
    • by bongey ( 974911 )

      Only real conspiracy theories going around right now are the alt left screaming "The Russians are coming".
      A video of someone saying they are committing voter fraud is call evidence.

  • by StandardCell ( 589682 ) on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @09:30AM (#53145601)
    There's no point in denying this any more. Journalists have always tended to lean left more than right, but 2016 has shown that all pretense of integrity and independence has completely evaporated. Rigged polls, collusion with PACs and the DNC, mudslinging directed at the RNC candidates while ignoring third party options and DNC scandals of the same magnitude as Watergate, and making unsubstantiated accusations of foreign interference by Russia while ignoring the foreign money from Soros and extreme Islamic regimes influencing the electoral process. Nothing is off limits to the same group that doctors audio recordings to falsely show racism and hypes up stories of a few cops committing criminal acts against black people while ignoring the fact that black on black violence is at epidemic levels.

    Rigging the Facebook feed to promote pro-DNC pro-Clinton pro-SJW causes is IMO an effective subliminal ploy even for those that scroll past it so they can see funny pictures of their friends' kids. They're cutting off Twitter feeds and FB pages of people they don't like too even though they have not violated the user agreement. All of them will stop at nothing to brainwash and browbeat us into one mind, and use the SJWs to persecute those who disagree with the positions like useful idiots.

    But it isn't just here as we've also seen in Europe with the hiding of stories and statistics on the effects on violence and crime due to mass migration from the third world. And, at this point, anyone who is a blind follower of political parties or of the media is a fool ready to be controlled to the will of an elite willing to throw us back into an effectively feudal system.

    Welcome to the Ministry of Truth. We have always been at war. All dissent is doubleplusungood. You don't even need to imagine a boot stomping on a human face forever because it's already coming through your computer screen.
    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by PvtVoid ( 1252388 )

      There's no point in denying this any more. Journalists have always tended to lean left more than right, but 2016 has shown that all pretense of integrity and independence has completely evaporated. Rigged polls, collusion with PACs and the DNC, mudslinging directed at the RNC candidates while ignoring third party options and DNC scandals of the same magnitude as Watergate, and making unsubstantiated accusations of foreign interference by Russia while ignoring the foreign money from Soros and extreme Islamic regimes influencing the electoral process. Nothing is off limits to the same group that doctors audio recordings to falsely show racism and hypes up stories of a few cops committing criminal acts against black people while ignoring the fact that black on black violence is at epidemic levels.

      Rigging the Facebook feed to promote pro-DNC pro-Clinton pro-SJW causes is IMO an effective subliminal ploy even for those that scroll past it so they can see funny pictures of their friends' kids. They're cutting off Twitter feeds and FB pages of people they don't like too even though they have not violated the user agreement. All of them will stop at nothing to brainwash and browbeat us into one mind, and use the SJWs to persecute those who disagree with the positions like useful idiots.

      I'm guessing lead poisoning.

    • I don't think so. The sites I go to are pretty fair with their criticisms of both candidates. It's not MSM's fault that Trump can't control himself and runs his campaign like it's a reality TV show. He is still operating with the idea that any media coverage is good media coverage.

      I think this story has more to do with excuses for not doing well. I mean it's hard to take Trump's complaints seriously when he has Fox and Breitbart as allies and not to mention the the talk show hosts. I live in a very red sta

      • by fulldecent ( 598482 ) on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @10:14AM (#53145911) Homepage

        What sources are you seeing fair reporting?

        Some sources I have read that are usually decent but are failing on this election:

          * The Economist -- does not investigate complaints about Trump and parrots the left's analysis; does not acknowledge any criticism of HRC
          * The Intercept -- reporting on Trump includes thorough analysis and opinion, reporting on facts critical of HRC include no analysis or commentary

        In fact the only balanced piece I have seen written was in Glamour magazine's op-ed written by the editor! It explained the contemplative process of voting in this election on page one and explained the issues voters face. Then page two was a bunch of claptrap about how women need to vote for a woman.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @10:19AM (#53145941)

        I don't think so. The sites I go to are pretty fair with their criticisms of both candidates.

        You must be going to the Church circular, because I have NEVER in all my years seen a Western election where the media has so clearly, relentlessly, and shamelessly picked a side and gone on the attack against a candidate.

        People are fooling themselves. What is happening to Trump has never happened to any candidate anyone can remember. There have always been oafs, buffoons, and morons running for office. Regan, Dan Quale, George H.W fucking Bush people. Bush wasn't even that long ago; Sarah Palin if you want something closer.

        But People are losing their minds over Trump. Really. He's nowhere near as far out there in comparison to a lot of Republican candidates of yesteryear, but the entire Media have flipped their shit like this is a second 9/11. I don't even think the coverage was this sloppy and slanted during the Iraq War. 90% of it is complete bullshit and hysteria, the other 10% is distorted reporting.

        I've come to the conclusion that it's not Trump. He's not that extreme. It's about his policies. They are extreme. But they're also what the public wants. What Sanders' supporters wanted. What a lot of people fed up with 8 years of austerity and 25 years of decline want. And that's why the media is lashing out so aggressively against him. Because unlike all the other batshit Republicans and religious wingnuts, Trump is actually giving the public want they want: Revenge.

        It's not about Trump. This is about the media trying to smother a rebellion by the 99%. And boy are they dirty about it.

        • By definition, Trump can either have extreme opinions or he can represent the majority view, but he can't do both. Getting elected is the art of getting lots of people from the middle of the political spectrum to agree with you.

          Getting nominated of course is a different matter. To get nominated you just have to get a plurality of a subset of voters, and ones predisposed to agree with you at that. News organizations were also predisposed to like Trump. He sells a lot of newspapers, and drives a lot of pagevi

          • by stdarg ( 456557 )

            By definition, Trump can either have extreme opinions or he can represent the majority view, but he can't do both.

            Only if you assume an "extreme" opinion is measured by the public view. If you're talking about extreme compared to what other politicians are saying, then it is possible to do both.

    • by Kierthos ( 225954 ) on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @10:48AM (#53146165) Homepage

      Except some of the polls showing Trump behind are from Fox News.

      When Fox has a recent poll that shows Clinton is ahead by 6-7 points (depending on whether it's a 2-way poll or 4-way), well, I really doubt they're carrying water for Clinton.

      And you have to understand... there's a certain percentage of the voting populace that is going to vote for the Republican candidate no matter who it is or how they are presented (good, bad, indifferent). There are likewise going to be a certain percentage of voters that are going to vote for the Democratic candidate no matter who it is or how they are presented (good, bad, indifferent).

      It doesn't matter what scandals dog those candidates, they will always get a certain percentage of the electorate.

      The trick is appealing to those who normally fall into one party or the other but don't care much for the candidate AND getting voters who class themselves as "independent".

      Unless something causes an inordinate number of voters from one party or the other to stay home, it is generally impossible to win the Presidential election with just the voters that you can automatically count on. You have to attract voters from outside those blocks.

      And Trump hasn't been doing so.

      Sure, he's gotten a few. Can't argue that. But he's spent so much time actively insulting blocks of voters that he's effectively reversed the inroads that the Republican party started making among (for example) Hispanic voters after Romney's defeat in 2012. Not to mention African-American voters, some Jewish voters, some Asian voters....

      He's trying (whether he means to or not) rely on the angry older white voter, and hey, he's gotten that block fairly well nailed down. But it's been at the expense of every other block of voters that he would need to win.

      The "easiest" path for a Trump victory in two weeks is to carry every state that Romney won in 2012 and then flip enough states to make up the 64 electoral votes that Romney fell short of.

      The problem there is that not only is Trump apparently failing to do that (it's unlikely that he's going to flip Pennsylvania or Florida, and Ohio might be out of reach as well), it's possible that he's going to lose some of the states that Romney won. He might lose Arizona, he might lose North Carolina. Hell, he might lose Utah.

      Facebook and other social media don't need to do anything to make Trump look bad. They just need to give him a forum, and Trump will do that himself.

  • by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @09:59AM (#53145787) Journal

    "Why at this point does it even matter?"

    Seriously, the media organizations in this country have decided that HRC would be our next president. It doesn't actually matter what she did or didn't do, the legality, the money, etc.

    To be clear: the voting is a pointless detail.

  • by Theovon ( 109752 ) on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @10:04AM (#53145815)

    So Hillary has made friends in businesses. So has Trump. The fact is, few politicians are completely clean. If you get into politics, you’re almost forced to play dirty because you know your competition isn’t going to pull any punches either.

  • Karma (Score:5, Funny)

    by fulldecent ( 598482 ) on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @10:06AM (#53145833) Homepage

    Anybody that still has karma, I recommend that you do NOT make comments in this thread.

    Here be dragons!

  • What bothers me more (Score:4, Informative)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @10:09AM (#53145863)

    It bugs me that this is even an issue. Why are so many people apparently willing to get their news from Facebook?

    Develop some critical thinking skills, people.

    • It bugs me that this is even an issue. Why are so many people apparently willing to get their news from Facebook?

      Because people are social creatures, and they trust their friends more than they trust some random journalist. And that would actually be a good thing if Facebook didn't censor and manipulate how people communicate.

  • Virtually all mainstream media is in collusion with the hegemony that is the Democratic Party, the Republican party leadership, the federal bureaucracy, popular media, banking, and the capital markets worldwide. Only those not paying attention or those relying only on the most popular and most loyal media for their information. You wonder why I include the Republican Party leadership? Do not. They are only interested in preserving their positions of power. They collude with their traditional opposition to

  • by ooloorie ( 4394035 ) on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @10:23AM (#53145979)

    Sandberg is angling for a cabinet position: after having graduated from growing up in a wealthy and privileged family to becoming a billionaire, her ambitions are higher, and what else is there other than political power? And even if she doesn't get the cabinet position, sucking up to the Democrats is good business for Silicon Valley companies.

    Of course, there is an enormous amount of hypocrisy and self-delusion in Sandberg's positions. She has led such a privileged life that 99.9% of the men whose backs she walks on can only dream of.

  • by Vermonter ( 2683811 ) on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @12:29PM (#53147057)
    Yeah, let's get a politician who doesn't pander to all the people who have the power (read: not you or me), and see how successfully they run for office. A politician who doesn't pander to the most powerful players is a politician who is going to lose to their competitor who does. And people who complain about politicians being in bed with big business are ignorant. Yeah, it sucks, but it's how politics works. It's how it has always worked, and it is how it's always going to work, until we are ruled by robots (and even then I'm not sure the game will change). You want Hillary or Trump to pander directly to you, but once they get elected, what good are you to them? Maybe $5000 in annual tax revenue if you're lucky. Maybe you're lucky enough to be a part of a voter block who collectively has enough power to get a bit of support in the form of a tax break or a subsidy, but odds are, you mean nothing to any politician.

"There is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress." -- Mark Twain

Working...