There are strong incentives in higher income brackets for tax purposes and such.
In the lower/minimum wage sphere, marriage can have the opposite effect. You can loose access to various government programs such as food stamps because suddenly your family income counts.
I've heard that support for single parents and low earning single parents has been increased in recent decades, which has led to lower rates of marriage and subsequent erosions to the general fabric in that socioeconomic sphere.
More and more very highly esteemed journalists, not pundits, are starting to voice their concerns about this more and more publicly. At the same rate they are being censored. I wouldn't be surprised if Snowden gets a pardon before inauguration. Imagine that. How the tables turn.
Greenwald, Snowden, Matt Taibbi, Lee Fang, Aaron Maté,
Max Blumenthal, Bret Weinstein, ...
None of these can be called right-wing or conservatives. I'm not even mentioning people like Rogan. All of them are aware or actual targets of the censoring.
The HN community is using political speech guidelines to clamp down in critique against MSM (Main Stream Media) and Silicon Valley conduct. At the same time I find political topics all the time on the front page that are deemed fine as long as they stay away from the above topics or are leaning "liberal" or "progressive".
It's been three weeks and I still can't use Instagram. They are still blocking #hashtag-recent-lists with a banner:
"Recent posts from all hashtags are temporarily hidden to help prevent the spread of possible false information and harmful content related to the election."
The hashtag I used to check is #handtoolwookworking. Very political indeed.
Not sure what you mean by "The HN Community" (users? moderators? both?) but there have been countless discussions of both media and Silicon Valley here—so many that the reaction among a large segment of users here is "oh no, not that again". Meanwhile others are so eager for more more more of this that anything less than "all of it featured" counts as "suppression and censorship!"
I can't tell which side you're claiming bias in favor of or against, but both sides get pissed off when they see something from the opposite point of view and, once they've seen two or three such things, fixate on seeing HN as biased $opposite-to-me. What's ironic is how identically the battling sides mirror each other this way.
That's not the point, isn't it? Of course the accusations are probably true, but what about other serious accusations about mainstream media, about mainstream democratic politicians about Y-Combinator in particular and the SV culture in general? Will they be treated with the same attention?
It's a political piece about regime change ops that highlights phrases like "... U.S. backed authoritarian capitalist regime ..." and "... Washington's Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program ...".
This isn't a critique piece against today's MSM. It's a piece that makes the point that the US is the evil force in the world today. You can feel that way and have arguments about that. That's fine and fair. But it's certainly not an example for critique against the MSM in the context of today and this discussion.
Probably the Title: “ How the US Used Disinformation and the ‘Jakarta Method’ to Change the World “
>The Jakarta Method is a 2020 non-fiction book by American journalist and writer Vincent Bevins. It concerns American support for the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66.
> political speech guidelines to clamp down in critique against MSM (Main Stream Media)
That is sensible, because the MSM label is primarily a label one side uses to describe media outlets that don't lean their ideological direction, while they ignore that there is absolutely no shortage of media outlets that do. So when you see someone using the loaded term, you know you're not reading a neutral analysis.
"not shortage of outlets that do" The problem isn't that they are biased per se (That is a problem)...
The problem is that they pretend not to be biased and they are the largest players.
"Neutral analysis" Yet Twitter, Facebook, CNN, MSNBC, etc all promise they are "unbiased" while they let stories without facts run against targets on the right (IE: 'anon person says Trump said' or Covington Highschool kids)... while they sideline or suppress stories with actual backing facts that target the left (IE: "Laptop from Hell").
You call it a loaded term... we call it the largest players in the pond are "stopping election interference" by literally practicing election interference by deciding what's "true" even when it's easily proven they are wrong more often than right.
What? MSM is anything but loaded. It's a description of the largest media platforms and that includes outlets like Fox News. And none of them provide "neutral analysis" hence the critiques.
Everything you said is wrong, imo. You're advocating censorship and labeling people you don't agree with. You might as well get a job in the MSM.
>MSM is anything but loaded. It's a description of the largest media platforms and that includes outlets like Fox News. And none of them provide "neutral analysis" hence the critiques.
Not really. You can argue that "fake news" is not loaded, because according to you it only means "news that are 100% fabricated with no basis in reality", but that still doesn't change the fact that a significant amount of people use it to refer to any news that they don't like.
I wouldn't say it's 'clear' but you're right that it's at least ambiguous.
For a less ambiguous case, look at how CNN and MSNBC treated the Bernie campaign/movement. Calling them "MSM" doesn't mean that one is a reactionary, it just means that one is outside of their set of approved viewpoints in any direction.
Does main stream media just mean fact-based, non-radicalizing, and trying to nudge sheeple towards peace and tolerance rather than violence and hate? I agree that is execrable, I think violent, bloody liberty for a few is better than peace for everyone.
It's not funny that even four tests can't give you a conclusive result. He should've taken 5?
At this point the testing infrastructure around covid19 is just a money printing enterprise. Just like you can't have a scientific discussion around covid19 anymore, you can't have one around testing either.
I'm expecting enormous amounts of fudging and 8-ball diagnostics.
If you want scientific discussion there is plenty of it to be had.
I recommend the podcast 'This Week in Virology' [1]. Every week they have a doctor on to discuss his experience in the hospital treating patients and with studies for 30 minutes or so and then they also have several academic virologists discuss recent papers such as this one showing how Covid likely killed a healthy 35 year old with a 3 month old baby by damaging her heart[2].
They also talk about other viruses and virus related news which is fascinating.
Musk is, as usual, willfully ignorant of science and should be ignored (or avoided entirely at the moment given he's potentially contagious)
Anything "specific" in writing would most likely be unconstitutional. So you wont find anything in writing anywhere. Not in a law, a regulation or even a handbook printed in this century.
Which is why this is a complicated topic bordering on religion or a general mindset.
I would recommend to listen to the "Black Intellectual Roundtable" with Bret Weinstein to get some general ideas. It's an hour of discussion.
Those hearings are also used to get representatives of these organizations on the record. Cruz certainly asked pointed questions, albeit driven by his political interest.
I'm still surprised how unprepared and naïve Jack seems to be for these kinds of procedures. The NYPost article in question and the entire account is still blocked to this day. I can only assume that they squashed it in such a way that they cannot recover it anymore.
I know people find a GOP election win unlikely (Not including me), but he is doing his investors a great disservice by not being prepared for a landslide GOP win that could transform Sec 230 greatly.
The questions is if a stronger case would see the light of day in the next four years with a change in administration. Maybe Barr thinks the answer is no.
If the administration changes, and they don't want to pursue the case, they can just drop it or flop it. Barr will not get a result before Inauguration so he's reliant on the next (or re-elected) adminstration regardless.
Not if the administration slow walks it, drags it out and then intentionally poorly presents its case as they realize its not in their interest to actually win it – which, if you spare me the speculation, is what a cynical person might say happened in the Oracle v. Google case, given that a positive result for Oracle there may mean Google now has huge swaths of newly-found copyrightable APIs of its own that its sitting on.
Note I say *the administration and not any particular candidate. I think both parties could (not to say they necessarily would) use this as mostly a political ploy to appeal to their bases without changing anything too drastic and walk away saying "we tried, blame the other side for the outcome" should they want to.
Yeah, I don't see how Google could pursue something like that without turning a large part of the market off using Google technologies. Doesn't mean they wont try though.
You have three months left to put the next admin "on the record". But you only have two weeks left to influence the election. I think it's clear from the timing what the priority is.
Yeah, puts them on record as bringing forth a weak case that's sure to lose.
Sounds to me like the current administration wants anti-trust to fail and going Leroy Jenkins on it right now is ensuring that a potential Biden administration has no hope of getting a strong case together. And if the current administration gets another term, they can push out a toothless settlement and claim "victory".
Exactly, it's a smart move. If a Biden administration wants to go easy on Google (and let's be honest: they do), now it'll be out in the open for everyone to see.
Democrats for a generation have been tough talkers about corporate power when speaking to the public, but doves when in private (or at fundraisers). Pinning them down is smart politics.
This makes no sense. Bringing a weak case now guarantees that DOJ won't pursue another case in the future after it gets its ass handed to it in court. There is plenty of support for going after big tech on both sides of the aisle --albeit for different reasons.
Here's a novel idea, how about we judge Bill Barr on his overriding multiple DOJ personnel in the weeks before an election instead of what intent you want to ascribe to a Biden admin. If the intent was to actually put pressure on the Biden admin, he had another 3 months to continue to build the case and then announce between the election and inauguration.
Bringing a weak case now guarantees that DOJ won't pursue another case in the future after it gets its ass handed to it in court
Simply because a complaint was filed does not mean that investigation doesn't continue. It's not as if the complaint cannot be amended or new complaints cannot be made.
But your question begging aside regarding this being a "weak case", if Barr felt (justly or unjustly) that the case wouldn't have been brought by a Biden administration then this may have been the best opportunity to make the complaint. It's not unreasonable to think that a Biden administration might be more sympathetic to Google. After all, Google was a prominent advising figure during the Obama administration and Harris is a San Francisco politician with Google relationships. Maybe that's a cynical view of the Biden administration or maybe it's not sufficiently cynical in evaluating Barr's motives. Such is politics and I don't really trust any of them.
> Simply because a complaint was filed does not mean that investigation doesn't continue.
While true, it does mean that you think you can make the case, which not many people think that they can, including a bunch of career prosecutors. I haven't seen a single outside analyst that has said this is a good case. Let's check in on what the market thinks of this case: GOOG: up 1.39% today as of time of this comment.
> that the case wouldn't have been brought by a Biden administration then this may have been the best opportunity to make the complaint.
Why? Why not November 4, or December 3, or January 14? Why now, 2 weeks before an election. It reeks of political motivation. Even if that wasn't the intent, it has the appearance of that intent which could have easily been avoided by simply waiting until after the election day.
Why? Why not November 4, or December 3, or January 14? Why now, 2 weeks before an election. It reeks of political motivation.
There are more types of political motivation than just vote seeking, and the timing is certainly political. If there's any time to get Biden and/or Harris on the record regarding whether they will continue to pursue the complaint is now. There will be no motivation for them to do so after the election no matter who wins.
> If there's any time to get Biden and/or Harris on the record regarding whether they will continue to pursue the complaint is now
Huh? How does doing this now, when the Trump campaign sucks up all the oxygen in the room going to lead to someone asking the Biden campaign about this.
99% of the people will literally not care what Biden has to say about this case, or what an independent DOJ under a Biden admin chooses to do with this in 3 months from now. It's only value is the current news cycle and hence vote seeking.
The problem there is that then we'll hear complaints that the incoming administration is either incompetent or corrupt for the Google probe failing or being dropped.
This seems like a pretty decent hedge on the outcome of the election to me. If it a strong case and they win, Barr can take credit if Trump stays in office or if Biden wins and cleans house.
If they lose the case and Trump is re-elected, Barr can lick his wounds and try again in a year or so with a stronger case.
If they lose the case and Biden cleans house, he can blame the Biden administration for dropping the ball.
Their goal isn't to actually enforce antitrust though, it's to appear strong for the election. So anything after November is completely useless to them. Your comment implies that once Democrats take over, there will be no more appetite for an antitrust case, which is not true.
