SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the with-great-power-comes-great-responsibility dept.
At The Hill,
Washington Monthly Executive Editor Gilad Edelman said the perception of Silicon Valley has shifted dramatically among Democrats and Republicans since the 2016 presidential election.
Edelman told Hill.TV that the industry was relatively insulated from criticism and viewed favorably by both parties until President Trump's surprise victory over Hillary Clinton, saying his win "really scrambled a lot these beliefs and intuitions."
"Silicon Valley seems to have gone from an industry with no enemies to an industry with no friends," Edelman said during an interview on "Rising."
"Democrats realized that whatever the CEOs of Google or Facebook might think, these platforms seems to have facilitated Donald Trump's election," he added. "On the right, the fact that Trump could get elected while breaking from some pretty serious orthodoxies — at least superficially on economic matters — meant that maybe there was more room to criticize corporate business practices than conservatives had previously thought."
(Score: 1, Troll) by bradley13 on Wednesday September 11 2019, @06:09PM (8 children)
The industry in Silicon Valley is progressive to the core. The fact that Trump got elected was pure miscalculation by the Swamp. Normally, candidates are pre-selected and the voters do what they're told. 2016 was supposed to be between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. Remember when he slipped and said "it's my turn"? It really was. In a race between Jeb and Hillary, well...both are fully owned and operated by the Swamp, so victory was assured - for the Swamp.
However, enough voters got wind of this to make a difference. Trump was not supposed to happen, but he was the only alternative to a pre-selected candidate.
If Silicon Valley is suffering, it is because they - along with the MSM - failed in their scripting. The Swamp has already ceded 2020, but once Trump is gone in 2024, such a failure will not happen again. Only carefully selected and controlled candidates will be allowed to reach the voters. It won't matter which side wins, because - back to business as usual - they are only two sides of the very same coin.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday September 11 2019, @09:23PM (5 children)
No it's not, as the rest of your comment points out.
"The Swamp" as you put it is a wholly owned subsidiary of industry, and they use various minor issues to motivate whichever part of the electorate might care.
Examples might be gay marriage or abortions. Get people all worked up about a fringe issue and they're much easier to manipulate.
When Silicon Valley start paying more in "campaign contributions" this will all go away.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by khallow on Thursday September 12 2019, @01:36AM (4 children)
Only if that "industry" is government. Else, industry is merely some bystanders who have influence because they have something to offer the Swamp.
Exactly. Something to offer.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday September 12 2019, @02:05AM (3 children)
When industry pays for something, they own it.
There is no practical difference between the industry that has purchased your government, and the government itself.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 12 2019, @11:44AM (2 children)
Just like when you buy a carbonated drink, you now own the company? Or do you need industry cooties first to be able to do that?
My take is that they buy an indulgence from the government. Now they own the indulgence for as long as the government feels like it.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday September 12 2019, @08:25PM (1 child)
The analogy I was going for was more along the lines of a shareholder.
If I buy shares in the soft drink company, I am an owner. If you look at who provides the funding for your politicians to be re-elected I think you will find that most of the money comes from industry, who become the major shareholders.
Yes, if they stop paying they lose their shareholding, but why would they? It is cheap and gives them the control they want.
(So sure, it's not a perfect analogy).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 13 2019, @03:24AM
Nobody can just lobby once and coast on that investment. They have to keep in the game, keep spending money to get their interests represented. And corrupt politicians will flip in a heartbeat, if someone else comes up with a better offer that you're unwilling to match. Sure, it's a cool story, bro, but the reality is that political influence/bribery is pay to play. You stop paying, no matter how much you put in to that point, you stop playing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 12 2019, @03:13AM
Despite being drained, The Swamp (c) managed to fill right back up to record new levels. In fact, it didn't even dip, just went straight up. Lucky we drained it, else it would be even higher. AMIFRITE?
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday September 13 2019, @01:25AM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.