Good! Can we not have a near perfect crop of complete losers next time? No one wants Zuck anymore than Hillary. Seems like a good way to lock in 4 more years of regret.
/me raises hand that I'd rather have Mark than Hillary. It's not so much that I agree with everything he says or stands for and I most certainly appreciate but don't idolize him. I'd rather have nearly any tech-savvy outsider than at least half the major party primary candidates last year.
leading the free world? you really mean US is some leader of free world? in what filed exactly? living standard, healthcare, education, internet, etc? because I fail to see pretty much any positive field in which US would be world leader.
It's funny how $100k of pro-Trump facebook ads by a foreign entity is a crime against humanity.
But like Obama actively campaigning for politicians in other countries [0] or the US getting involved in god knows how many other elections is like totally... meh.
> But like Obama actively campaigning for politicians in other countries
The source you quoted shows nothing about 'Obama actively campaigning for politicians in other countries'. In fact it exonerates him of your charges.
The most recent US interference in a foreign election (quoted in your source) was in 2000, when Dubya was President. You could arguable attribute that to Bill Clinton, since the groundwork would have to have been laid earlier than 2000.
> In 2000, the U.S. spent millions of dollars in aid for political parties, campaign costs and independent media. Funding and broadcast equipment provided to the media arms of the opposition were a decisive factor in electing opposition candidate Vojislav Kostunica as Yugoslav president, according to Levin. “If it wouldn’t have been for overt intervention … Milosevic would have been very likely to have won another term,” he said.
Not that I am one to defend George W. Bush, but he was not President until January 2001. Whatever else he is guilty of (spoiler: a lot), he is entirely innocent of this, as it happened during the Clinton presidency.
> The most recent US interference in a foreign election (quoted in your source) was in 2000
You are been naive. The coup in Brazil (2016) was deliberately discussed, supported and planned in events of american "NGOs" in Brazil. Also, a lot of Syrian rebel's like groups were created or supported by american money. Direct interference is one thing, but if you have a machine that mess with the elections of every country in the world it is still a state interference in another one's affair.
"Whataboutism is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument"
Yeah, but what's the name of the epistemic fallacy you commit when you single out one instance of a common phenomenon and subject it to extra scrutiny?
Also, as someone who criticized the Obama administration while it was still in charge, it's extra annoying. Because suddenly, every little government action is sharply judged. And when you point out that no one cared while Obama was in charge, you get accused of whataboutery.
What is your goal for pointing out that nobody cared when Obama was in charge? Showing that you were opposed to it before being opposed to it was cool? If you are objectively opposed to something, and now suddenly everybody else doesn't like it either, go ahead and lock in those gains. Say "you know what, you're right, we should get rid of <insert power here>".
Call it whatever you want, but you know you are only distracting from the point of comments like these. That point is that you need to be consistent. If you have a problem with some behavior on the other side, then you also need to have a problem when the same behavior happens on your side. If you are ok with one, you must be ok with the other. If you have a problem with one, then you must have a problem with the other. If you want to crucify people on the other side for some behavior, then you must also be okay when that same crucification happens to members of your side. If you write off some behavior when it happens on your side, you must also be willing to write it off when it occurs on the other side.
(Sorry to essentially say the same thing multiple times over, but hypocrisy is so engrained in our dna you need to forcefully call attention to it sometimes.)
It's entirely possible to be in favor of open democracies supporting democracy-friendly candidates in other countries, while being against autocracies supporting autocracy-friendly candidates in other countries (including your own).
That's really the danger of whataboutism, it basically asserts that any two actions must be considered morally equivalent, regardless of the intended aim. That is simply not the case.
> "like Obama actively campaigning for politicians in other countries"
The US has a history of campaigning (put politely) or interfering (more accurately) in foreign elections[1]. It's not really a partisan issue.
I suspect having other countries interfere in the US election, the bastion of democracy in the western world, has happened before. Just never so visibly.
Whataboutism doesn't change anything but derail the conversation, which I imagine is your intention. If I beat up a murderer, I still should be arrested for assault and battery.
Testifying before a congressional committee does not mean one is involved with a crime - it may be, but not necessarily so. Congressional committees hold hearings to investigate things, and they ask people to testify about those things to learn what is going on.
You can be found in contempt of Congress if you decline the subpoena. But keep in mind that people who are subpoenaed to testify in criminal cases but are not a defendant nor suspected of any crime can be found in contempt of court for not testifying. In fact, the only time you can refuse to testify is when you are accused of a crime, as you can invoke the Fifth Amendment. (But in the case of Congressional testimony, you'll still have to show up and assert the Fifth. In a criminal trial where you are the defendant you'd just not take the stand at all.)
I am not a lawyer. But as a layperson, I find your objection to be a non-sequitur; I assume that most people who testify before Congress are not suspected of wrong-doing.
It's not a non-sequitur. The only reason to drag an innocent person through a congressional hearing is to score political brownie points with constituents. I find that reprehensible, and do not think the visibly popular & successful personalities of our time need to be dragged through a sideshow for someone's political gain
Oh please. Social media was exploited and abused like never before during this election cycle. All the major social networks have become a breeding ground for extremism, geopolitical propaganda, and misinformation. The public has every right to know what role the operators of these platforms served, and what actions - if any - they took. How much did they know about it and when? Did they fight to maintain the integrity of their networks or were they complicit? Or did they simply turn a blind eye to protect their inflated user numbers and rip off the advertisers who use their platforms?
Nobody is accusing Zuckerburg of a crime, but his company has hardly been transparent or forthcoming about this either. The public deserves an explanation, not only from him, but the folks at Twitter and Reddit as well.
Where is the public deriving it's said entitlement from? Morals? Ethics? or laws?
There's no legal obligation on FB to shed light on anything that's completely legal. I'm assuming you're citing ethics. If FB is capable of making YOU the product, you think they care about how their advertising dollars come? As long as they're legal
The United States has been disrupting, corrupting, and in some cases, overthrowing elections for decades. Now all of a sudden another country as the audacity to screw with our elections and suddenly everyone is shocked! So much hypocrisy. If you want to really see how an election can be corrupted, and thrown, just wait to Zuckerberg runs for President.
Now everyone is mad because Trump doesn't seem to fit the general agenda of the centrist and left leaning media.
I don't like Trump either but bitching about Russia is hypercritical and also pointless.
If the climate wasn't right Russia wouldn't been able to get Trump 1000 extra votes.
Maybe we should look to how we got to a place where polarizing populist candidates without even the slightest shred of credibility are electable in the first place.
49 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 90.4 ms ] threadhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMqcLUqYqrs
Whether it is accurate now is another topic, though.
Hillary won millions more votes than Trump.
Trump is at historic disapproval levels for a president at his time in office.
But like Obama actively campaigning for politicians in other countries [0] or the US getting involved in god knows how many other elections is like totally... meh.
[0] http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-...
The source you quoted shows nothing about 'Obama actively campaigning for politicians in other countries'. In fact it exonerates him of your charges.
The most recent US interference in a foreign election (quoted in your source) was in 2000, when Dubya was President. You could arguable attribute that to Bill Clinton, since the groundwork would have to have been laid earlier than 2000.
> In 2000, the U.S. spent millions of dollars in aid for political parties, campaign costs and independent media. Funding and broadcast equipment provided to the media arms of the opposition were a decisive factor in electing opposition candidate Vojislav Kostunica as Yugoslav president, according to Levin. “If it wouldn’t have been for overt intervention … Milosevic would have been very likely to have won another term,” he said.
Obama would come to power a full 2 terms later.
[0] - https://wikileaks.org/cia-france-elections-2012/
https://spectator.org/obamas-meddling-in-foreign-elections-s...
Some dude's diary is front page news there: https://spectator.org/as-im-being-audited/
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-admin-se...
You are been naive. The coup in Brazil (2016) was deliberately discussed, supported and planned in events of american "NGOs" in Brazil. Also, a lot of Syrian rebel's like groups were created or supported by american money. Direct interference is one thing, but if you have a machine that mess with the elections of every country in the world it is still a state interference in another one's affair.
EDIT: and also direct State interference: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-bra...
EDIT 2: and support of the media with ludicrous arguments. The corruption version of the WMD: https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/09/09/of...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
(Sorry to essentially say the same thing multiple times over, but hypocrisy is so engrained in our dna you need to forcefully call attention to it sometimes.)
That's really the danger of whataboutism, it basically asserts that any two actions must be considered morally equivalent, regardless of the intended aim. That is simply not the case.
The US has a history of campaigning (put politely) or interfering (more accurately) in foreign elections[1]. It's not really a partisan issue.
I suspect having other countries interfere in the US election, the bastion of democracy in the western world, has happened before. Just never so visibly.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_electoral_intervention
No details as to the content of the ads have been revealed. One would think that if they were pro-Trump they would have mentioned that in the release.
Sensationalist BS
I am not a lawyer. But as a layperson, I find your objection to be a non-sequitur; I assume that most people who testify before Congress are not suspected of wrong-doing.
Nobody is accusing Zuckerburg of a crime, but his company has hardly been transparent or forthcoming about this either. The public deserves an explanation, not only from him, but the folks at Twitter and Reddit as well.
There's no legal obligation on FB to shed light on anything that's completely legal. I'm assuming you're citing ethics. If FB is capable of making YOU the product, you think they care about how their advertising dollars come? As long as they're legal
Russia interfering with US elections is a problem for the US but it's a given fact since the dawn of diplomacy and geopolitics.
21 years ago this was on the cover of Time: http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html
Now everyone is mad because Trump doesn't seem to fit the general agenda of the centrist and left leaning media.
I don't like Trump either but bitching about Russia is hypercritical and also pointless.
If the climate wasn't right Russia wouldn't been able to get Trump 1000 extra votes. Maybe we should look to how we got to a place where polarizing populist candidates without even the slightest shred of credibility are electable in the first place.