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: 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.