The Donald vs Big Tech

[Pedrito]

The responses to this are going to be epic. I purposely didn't watch my words when typing 

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

So do you think in 2016 big tech and big business decided they wanted Trump to win? Or do you think that four years ago they just decided not to get involved and stood back?

The only difference I see between this looting of the Capitol and the looting by BLM folks, mentioned by Nazgul above, is that this current demonstration of discontent was demanded, sanctioned, praised, and forgiven by the same President who threatened BLM rioters with the toughest sentencing if they touched any federal buildings.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

That, and the volumes that this photo from a few months back speaks:

[Caomhaoin]

You are woke and anti capitalist but woke capitalism is the NWO!

Nice insertion of 'black folks' in there to 'inadvertently' annoy me, dextrously done

[Pedrito]

2016 was an anomoly, a glitch in the system and they pulled out all the stops to make sure it won't happen again. They've got their man in there now, so we can all rest easy now.

BLM and the riots was sanctioned by every second politician, a whole section of the news media, artists, politicians, big tech, big globalist monsters of businesses, even your good self weighed in telling us how wanton destruction, looting and murder was a good thing somehow, so I just see it all as tit for tat. I'm not necessarily condoning it, but I can see how it has come to this.

[Pedrito]

You are woke and anti capitalist but woke capitalism is the NWO!

Nice insertion of 'black folks' in there to 'inadvertently' annoy me, dextrously done

WOKE capitalism...couldn't have put it any better myself. The idea that anything in the last couple of years was done on impulse is hilarious.

[Ollkiller]

Well if nothing else that was a good evenings entertainment. As was this thread. The pic Chris put up highlights how different the response would have been if BLM had stormed the building. And the video Trump put up to tell people to go home. Christ above.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

2016 was an anomoly, a glitch in the system and they pulled out all the stops to make sure it won't happen again. They've got their man in there now, so we can all rest easy now.

BLM and the riots was sanctioned by every second politician, a whole section of the news media, artists, politicians, big tech, big globalist monsters of businesses, even your good self weighed in telling us how wanton destruction, looting and murder was a good thing somehow, so I just see it all as tit for tat. I'm not necessarily condoning it, but I can see how it has come to this.

Hang on, I didn't say BLM looting was a good thing, I said it was to be expected, and could be understood. Just as it was to be expected that MAGA supporters would attack the Capitol given that Mr.MAGA himself told them to.

Maybe you're right about 2016, but I don't buy it. The Democrats hit out hard at big tech for precisely the opposite; saying that their unregulated systems had allowed the misinformation spread that, supposedly, boosted the Trump vote. There is no reason to believe that big tech was mobilized to ensure a Democrat victory in 2016. Or if they were, then they went at it totally ham-fistedly, when with a few algorithm tweaks, they could have ensured that Trump banners, etc., were seen by primarily all the wrong people. It doesn't add up to think it was a glitch in the system; it was just the system unregulated, wide-open to manipulation. As wide open as social media still is to bullshit advertisers, is how open it was to bullshit of all types four, five years ago. It's only recently that extra scrutiny has been placed on political content, and only political content. But no new technology has been introduced to do that, and if they'd wanted to big tech could have assured a Clinton victory in 2016, relatively easily.

[Pedrito]

'Unregulated systems' and 'misinformation'.

According to whom?

We've seen so much supposedly valid information this year about all sorts of issues that they didn't bat an eyelid at. Tonnes of wild accusations have been thrown around about the police amongst othere. Seems like unregulatd systems and misinformation only applies in certain circumstances.

[Yung Led Zeppelin]

BLM were not attempting to enter a government building during a critical part of an election process.

The burning of police stations is another matter, but just keeping it to demonstrations in Washington in line with this one, the heavy riot troops were rolled out. That stinks, to me. There was a woman shot, which is fucked, but she was inside the building at the time and by and large the dispersion tactics OUTSIDE that I saw were nowhere near as heavy-handed as what happened there in the summer. To be clear, that is absolutely the way they should be dispersed, I don't wish violence on them, but it's very difficult for me to view this with anything but suspicion.

[northside hoop]

Sorry if already posted

https://loudwire.com/iced-earth-jon-schaffer-pro-trump-mob-capitol-photo/

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

'Unregulated systems' and 'misinformation'.

According to whom?

Purely for argument's sake, let's say 'misinformation' is a subjective term (just as Donnie would like it!), and look purely at 'unregulated systems'. My point is that, if big tech had wanted to 'regulate' systems in 2015/2016 in such a way that Trump content reached less of an audience and the wrong type of audience, then they could have done that easily with the social media algorithm technology then already existent. But, on the contrary, Trump content reached an enormous audience, and all the right ones, thanks to what the likes of Cambridge Analytica were able to do. They were able to do that because there was no mobilization by big tech to prevent them doing it. There is no evidence to suggest that Trump won in 2016 "despite" some kind of FB, Twitter, whatever attempt to prevent him winning. If anything, there's evidence (Cambridge Analytica, etc., again) that their hands off approach would essentially gift the electoral battle for social media influenced voters to whoever would end up being the most unscrupulous with the possibilities offered by how social media was regulated (or not) at the time.

[Nazgûl]

Nice insertion of 'black folks' in there to 'inadvertently' annoy me, dextrously done

[Kurt Cocaine]

MOMENT WOMAN IS SHOT AND KILLED IN DC PROTEST.....****,,,,

https://theync.com/moment-in-which-the-woman-is-shot.htm

[Pedrito]

'Unregulated systems' and 'misinformation'.

According to whom?

Purely for argument's sake, let's say 'misinformation' is a subjective term (just as Donnie would like it!), and look purely at 'unregulated systems'. My point is that, if big tech had wanted to 'regulate' systems in 2015/2016 in such a way that Trump content reached less of an audience and the wrong type of audience, then they could have done that easily with the social media algorithm technology then already existent. But, on the contrary, Trump content reached an enormous audience, and all the right ones, thanks to what the likes of Cambridge Analytica were able to do. They were able to do that because there was no mobilization by big tech to prevent them doing it. There is no evidence to suggest that Trump won in 2016 "despite" some kind of FB, Twitter, whatever attempt to prevent him winning. If anything, there's evidence (Cambridge Analytica, etc., again) that their hands off approach would essentially gift the electoral battle for social media influenced voters to whoever would end up being the most unscrupulous with the possibilities offered by how social media was regulated (or not) at the time.

They didn't regulate in 2016 because they thought Clinton was a shoe in. Nobody for one minute believed he was getting in. I'm concerned by your use of phrases like 'mobilization by big tech' as if that is something we should want happening in a democratic society. Anyway, they have certainly mobilised now and it's no surprise that entirely 'left leaning' corporations have had their hand in this election outcome. I think it's utterly naive to believe otherwise.