National security is the sum total of the individual earned securities
of each citizen, including economic, political, social, health,
cultural, military and all sorts of security that pertain to the
identity we call a nation.
What these guys are talking about is something else. They are talking
about the security of the security services, their own self interests
and the status quo of enmeshed relations between three letter agencies
and a few captured tech giants.
On the contrary, the exact opposite is true. National security is best
served by a diverse, pluralistic, open, heterogeneous tech industry.
There is no reason intelligence needs cannot function properly with
such an ecosystem, but it would have to do so through the Rule of Law,
and systems of warrants that the incumbents have sought to bypass this
last 20 years.
Splitting Apple/Google/Facebook/Amazon into 40 smaller tech companies would result in larger tech companies from elsewhere - mostly China - eating American tech industry's lunch on the world stage.
Large companies have massive resources which are a competitive advantage. Having these titanic companies headquartered in the US, beholden to American laws, employing Americans, being a symbol of American prowess abroad and listed on American stock exchanges is in American interests on multiple tangible & intangible levels; including allowing American engineers to command ridiculous salaries and granting the government a lot of soft-power.
The recent sanctions on Russia (and previously Huawei/ZTE) shows howuch that soft-power is worth
I have to ask - by "diverse", do you mean "different people from different backgrounds who have different viewpoints"? Or do you mean "people who all think the same way but have different skin colors"?
The national security argument is a red herring. It is in the interest of monopolies to keep their monopolies going. And they have all the money and lobbyists in the world to make it happen.
So there are 3 ways the government could influence Big Tech:
1. Infiltration. An agent or asset could be in a position of power to enact desired policies and changes, provide a backdoor or whatever;
2. Jurisdiction. The platform falls under US jurisdiction so is subject to various forms of law enforcement, secret or otherwise. National Security Letters, FISA warrants, pen registers, that sort of thing; and
3. Propaganda. US companies reflect the cultural and political values of their founders, board and management as will as the will of stockholders. For some issues there is a political divide but for many issues there isn't, most notably when it comes to US foreign policy where Democrats and Republicans are basically indistinguishable.
The prevailing foreign policy view is that the US is good and a benign hegemony and a civilizing and democratizing force. The current foreign policy bent also favours interventionism and has since World War Two.
You see this at the huge backlash you get, even here among relatively educated and informed commenters, when you dare to suggest that the US bears some responsibility for Ukraine's predicament even though Russia is of course wholly responsible for an unjustifiable invasion.
It's a real lesson in the power of US propaganda and how ingrained the benign hegemony meme (and it is a meme) is.
My theory is the first 2 points I listed above don't matter. They're of almost no importance. What really matters is the ability of the US media (and I include social media companies in this umbrella) to project US propaganda and to normalize the US-centric view of the world.
To say that the US is in any way responsible for Ukraine is to deny ukraine agency. They are caught between a lion and a bear. They could reject the aid of the lion, but that would throw them into the hands of the bear. They choose to accept US help in their defense, but that makes them vulnerable to US invasion. This is a choice they made, and they bare the consequences. The US in offering that help might have sought to anger russia, but they left it to the ukrainians to decide whether to follow through.
Fundamentally, russia had no interest in allowing ukraine to be an independent country. US aid forestalled an invasion, and made the ultimate invasion a fairer fight, but it wasn't the cause of it.
> The prevailing foreign policy view is that the US is good and a benign hegemony and a civilizing and democratizing force.
No, that's just how it's sold to the public. E.g. I guarantee nobody had civilizing and democratizing in mind when the US occupying force in Iraq issued order 81:
the people in Iraq are now prohibited from saving newly designed seeds (not the traditional ones) and may only plant seeds for their food from licensed, authorized U.S. distributors. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Orders
> You see this at the huge backlash you get, even here among relatively educated and informed commenters, when you dare to suggest that the US bears some responsibility for Ukraine's predicament even though Russia is of course wholly responsible for an unjustifiable invasion.
Only 1 country is killing Ukrainians: Russia. There's no US troops massacring and raping Ukrainians... The only thing the US is responsible for is that they could have maybe threatened Russia enough to not invade.
Anyhow, I've been sceptical of US hegemony at times however one thing is clear: the world is far better with the US as the dominant power than it would be if Russia or China were dominant. At least the US allows its citizens and those of its 'protectorates' (or whatever you want to call US allies/countries it protects) a large degree of personal freedom.
> You see this at the huge backlash you get, even here among relatively educated and informed commenters, when you dare to suggest that the US bears some responsibility for Ukraine's predicament even though Russia is of course wholly responsible for an unjustifiable invasion.
Here's the thing, the people who keep saying that US bears responsibility for Ukraine's predicament are wrong.
I'm Russian so I follow various sources (both Russian and Ukrainian) in the original languages. Putin has had his eyes on Ukraine at least since he came into power 20 years ago. In 2014 Igor Girkin (among others) was sent clandestinely to take over Crimea and start the war in the Donbas. Girkin is a monarchist and believes in "the Greater Russia". He believes that Russians and Ukrainians are the same people (an opinion Putin shares and has publicly proclaimed before the war).
The FSB has a whole department (the 5th service) devoted to subversion of Ukraine, including payment/bribes of billions of dollars to various gov't and media officials (one of whom, Viktor Medvedchuk, was captured by the SBU recently while attempting to flee house arrest).
Blaming this conflict on NATO and the US is part of Kremlin propaganda, including their "de-nazification" claims. If anything, this conflict has shown just how important NATO is in keeping people like Putin in check, as he would've gladly continued to the Baltic states and maybe others if his Ukrainian campaign succeeded (in fact, some Russian politicians have publicly stated this on national Russian TV recently).
4. Coercion and Corruption. The government tells Big Tech "You're going to do $GOVERNMENT_THING, as well as fund our next campaigns. Cooperate and we'll make you even more wealthy and powerful; refuse and we'll bury you." This is a nefarious combination of all 3 of your points, and I suspect the most common.
Its much more interesting i think because in the end, its a game of who remains in power, the public domain (government, theoretically) or the private domain (large Corp). The Chinese CP decived to crack down on to-big-to-fail, where as we in the west ...
I'm sure if it was on the table, intelligence and national security officials would issue a jointly signed letter that implementing a "Great Firewall" in America is necessary for national security.
Luckily, these people don't get a say in what congress does. I will continue to vote for legislators who advocate busting tech monopolies.
That makes one vote, unfortunately, it doesn't matter.
The set of people who vote on tech issues is dwarfed by the set of people who vote based on what "team" the candidate is on. That's simple reality, and it's not changing anytime soon.
If we want real change, we'll have to start paying the large "campaign contributions" that the organizations on the other side pay. It's a horrible thing to say, but that's how the system works.
I don't put much faith in things Turley writes. He went off the deep end a long time ago and went into crazy town. Marc Elias has, correctly IMO, labeled him as "the pillow guy, but with tenure."
Suppression of liberty and free speech is against the founding ethos of America. Should we abandon that ethos, we have abandoned the very idea of America.
--
"Better to die on your feet than live on your knees."
~ Emiliano Zapata
--
"Live Free or Die"
~ U.S. state of New Hampshire
--
"Give me liberty or give me death!"
~ Patrick Henry
--
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
~ Benjamin Franklin
--
"True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else."
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic..."
~ Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. writing for a unanimous Supreme Court about why antiwar pamphleteers should be jailed.
--
"We think ... that [black people] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time [of America's founding] considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them."
~ Chief justice Roger Taney, for the Supreme Court majority in Dred Scott vs. Sandford
Fighting for liberty and freedom is an idea so divorced from contemporary society that the age of the founding fathers might as well be mythology.
We already have a sizeable portion of the population that wants people that don't agree with them to be silenced. And as long as they can all still buy their cattle feed at Wal-Mart, nothing is going to change for the better.
Frances Haugen, the supposed Facebook whistleblower, slipped up in her 60 minutes interview and revealed that she works for US intelligence. The effort she was employed to advance is acceptance of more censorship of Meta and the like. Conspicuously absent from the publicly promoted discussion was any mention of the free alternatives such as the fediverse. 'The Social Dilemma' movie had similar objectives and narrative framing.
I anticipate that self-hosters, linux users, and people who are not Facebooked will be further castigated as radicals and worse in the future.
Also note the irony that Substack contains Google and Amazon trackers.
None of their arguments are that convincing to me but I do think there's something to the broader argument in a US/China lens. The Chinese govt is backing up the dumptruck investing into AI while good ole boys in DC are passing around billion dollar contracts on fighter jets. Google and Facebook are leading the west in AI innovation in my opinion. If AGI is possible, it would really suck for the world if China got there first.
Imagine how different the world would be if China beat us to the internet and the Great Firewall was the world standard, but with AGI it will probably be able to rapidly become more advanced and prevent others from coming close to it.
If the US were to get serious in AI investment I wouldn't care about breaking up big tech but that doesn't seem to be the case at all.
Harry Truman said in 1945 about the atomic bomb, "We thank God that it has come to us, instead of to our enemies". I feel the same way about FAANG and Silicon Valley as a whole (and Wall Street, and Hollywood, and SpaceX/Tesla, and the Ivy League), that they are in the United States.
That doesn't mean I approve of everything they do. That doesn't mean I can't or won't decry their putting thumbs on scales toward a certain type of bien-pensant ideology. That does mean that, overall, I am very, very glad that they are American instead of Russian, Chinese, or even British, French, or German.
It's such a financially convenient line of thinking. It's absolute nonsense. Both at face value and once you dig into it. Mainstream media is feeding us constant lies which work against our interests, destroy our ability to trust institutions and the government. Big Tech is clearly the biggest threat to our democracy.
Before Big Tech, we did not have such problems. This new narrative is pure self-serving propaganda, a figment of the imagination of corporate-funded lobbyists.
Free-market capitalism with freedom of speech is the recipe for economic prosperity. Has been for hundreds of years.
Some people will point to China as an attempt to show a counter-example ("Look at China, they're totalitarian and their economy has been booming.") but they conveniently forget the fact that China's growth has been happening during a time of general loosening of policies. The past 20 years in China have overall been characterized by an increasing tolerance for free-market capitalism and more freedom of speech compared to what it was before.
China came out of an extreme form of communism. Of course, any loosening would yield huge improvements! Also, they have over 1 billion people, of course any small improvement to even a small fraction of their population would have an impact globally.
The problem with the US and the west is not freedom of speech or the free market, it's our debt-based monetary system which is now based on soft money. The decline started in 1971 when USD became detached from the gold standard. It's no longer backed by anything; also, the growth in the currency supply has become unconstrained and the distribution mechanisms for all newly issued currency have been partially hijacked to serve corporate interests. The effects of this were not felt immediately. It's only in recent years that the negative effects of our soft-money system have become difficult to ignore.
The important thing to note is that no fiat system has ever survived more than a few hundred years. A monetary system which is founded on the endless debasement of its own currency is doomed to fail sooner or later. There has been hundreds of such monetary systems over thousands of years; not one which remains to this day. It has never worked and will never work in the long run. They're just pyramid schemes.
>The problem with the US and the west is not freedom of speech or the free market, it's our debt-based monetary system which is now based on soft money. The decline started in 1971 when USD became detached from the gold standard.
You have it backwards. We didn't end Bretton Woods because the government wanted to print money. The government was printing money, so they had to end Bretton Woods or else hyperinflation would occur. Right after WWII, Europe and Japan were desperate for capital to rebuild, so they were willing to exchange physical gold with made up paper, so it was free money while it lasted. If there were any real interest in maintaining a fiscal responsibility, they would have allowed investors to buy gold at the same price.
I agree with some of your points but accusations like that without any room for nuance do not resonate with me.
> The problem with the US and the west is not freedom of speech or the free market, it's our debt-based monetary system which is now based on soft money.
And I've seen convincing arguments claiming the exact opposite: that debt has allowed large enterprises, investments that have gone on to create untold capital. I'm still on the fence.
> Free-market capitalism with freedom of speech is the recipe for economic prosperity. Has been for hundreds of years.
Economic prosperity for a handful of wealthy Brits you mean? Regulated capitalism created the middle class, free market capitalism is doing its damnedest to undo that outcome.
What is this talk about “the algorithm,” as in Musk saying “they should open source the algorithm.” Is this the traffic boosting and suppression mechanism?
>What is this talk about “the algorithm,” as in Musk saying “they should open source the algorithm.” Is this the traffic boosting and suppression mechanism?
If for example you make a post that says "Vaccines cause autism". They dont have enough humans to moderate this. They write an algorithm that generally sees that and you get shadowbanned or equivalent.
What are all the subjects in which you may not talk about on twitter? Its not public knowledge. Open sourcing it means people can see the true bias.
[+] [-] nonrandomstring|3 years ago|reply
What these guys are talking about is something else. They are talking about the security of the security services, their own self interests and the status quo of enmeshed relations between three letter agencies and a few captured tech giants.
On the contrary, the exact opposite is true. National security is best served by a diverse, pluralistic, open, heterogeneous tech industry. There is no reason intelligence needs cannot function properly with such an ecosystem, but it would have to do so through the Rule of Law, and systems of warrants that the incumbents have sought to bypass this last 20 years.
[+] [-] sangnoir|3 years ago|reply
Large companies have massive resources which are a competitive advantage. Having these titanic companies headquartered in the US, beholden to American laws, employing Americans, being a symbol of American prowess abroad and listed on American stock exchanges is in American interests on multiple tangible & intangible levels; including allowing American engineers to command ridiculous salaries and granting the government a lot of soft-power.
The recent sanctions on Russia (and previously Huawei/ZTE) shows howuch that soft-power is worth
[+] [-] colpabar|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway_1928|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmyeet|3 years ago|reply
1. Infiltration. An agent or asset could be in a position of power to enact desired policies and changes, provide a backdoor or whatever;
2. Jurisdiction. The platform falls under US jurisdiction so is subject to various forms of law enforcement, secret or otherwise. National Security Letters, FISA warrants, pen registers, that sort of thing; and
3. Propaganda. US companies reflect the cultural and political values of their founders, board and management as will as the will of stockholders. For some issues there is a political divide but for many issues there isn't, most notably when it comes to US foreign policy where Democrats and Republicans are basically indistinguishable.
The prevailing foreign policy view is that the US is good and a benign hegemony and a civilizing and democratizing force. The current foreign policy bent also favours interventionism and has since World War Two.
You see this at the huge backlash you get, even here among relatively educated and informed commenters, when you dare to suggest that the US bears some responsibility for Ukraine's predicament even though Russia is of course wholly responsible for an unjustifiable invasion.
It's a real lesson in the power of US propaganda and how ingrained the benign hegemony meme (and it is a meme) is.
My theory is the first 2 points I listed above don't matter. They're of almost no importance. What really matters is the ability of the US media (and I include social media companies in this umbrella) to project US propaganda and to normalize the US-centric view of the world.
[+] [-] syrrim|3 years ago|reply
Fundamentally, russia had no interest in allowing ukraine to be an independent country. US aid forestalled an invasion, and made the ultimate invasion a fairer fight, but it wasn't the cause of it.
[+] [-] car_analogy|3 years ago|reply
No, that's just how it's sold to the public. E.g. I guarantee nobody had civilizing and democratizing in mind when the US occupying force in Iraq issued order 81:
the people in Iraq are now prohibited from saving newly designed seeds (not the traditional ones) and may only plant seeds for their food from licensed, authorized U.S. distributors. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Orders
[+] [-] Mikeb85|3 years ago|reply
Only 1 country is killing Ukrainians: Russia. There's no US troops massacring and raping Ukrainians... The only thing the US is responsible for is that they could have maybe threatened Russia enough to not invade.
Anyhow, I've been sceptical of US hegemony at times however one thing is clear: the world is far better with the US as the dominant power than it would be if Russia or China were dominant. At least the US allows its citizens and those of its 'protectorates' (or whatever you want to call US allies/countries it protects) a large degree of personal freedom.
[+] [-] mikevm|3 years ago|reply
Here's the thing, the people who keep saying that US bears responsibility for Ukraine's predicament are wrong. I'm Russian so I follow various sources (both Russian and Ukrainian) in the original languages. Putin has had his eyes on Ukraine at least since he came into power 20 years ago. In 2014 Igor Girkin (among others) was sent clandestinely to take over Crimea and start the war in the Donbas. Girkin is a monarchist and believes in "the Greater Russia". He believes that Russians and Ukrainians are the same people (an opinion Putin shares and has publicly proclaimed before the war).
The FSB has a whole department (the 5th service) devoted to subversion of Ukraine, including payment/bribes of billions of dollars to various gov't and media officials (one of whom, Viktor Medvedchuk, was captured by the SBU recently while attempting to flee house arrest).
Blaming this conflict on NATO and the US is part of Kremlin propaganda, including their "de-nazification" claims. If anything, this conflict has shown just how important NATO is in keeping people like Putin in check, as he would've gladly continued to the Baltic states and maybe others if his Ukrainian campaign succeeded (in fact, some Russian politicians have publicly stated this on national Russian TV recently).
[+] [-] ARandomerDude|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway412112|3 years ago|reply
Its much more interesting i think because in the end, its a game of who remains in power, the public domain (government, theoretically) or the private domain (large Corp). The Chinese CP decived to crack down on to-big-to-fail, where as we in the west ...
[+] [-] giraffe_lady|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] incomingpain|3 years ago|reply
A day later a bunch of former intelligence people basically said this is a good idea. That's funny to me.
[+] [-] helen___keller|3 years ago|reply
Luckily, these people don't get a say in what congress does. I will continue to vote for legislators who advocate busting tech monopolies.
[+] [-] bilbo0s|3 years ago|reply
The set of people who vote on tech issues is dwarfed by the set of people who vote based on what "team" the candidate is on. That's simple reality, and it's not changing anytime soon.
If we want real change, we'll have to start paying the large "campaign contributions" that the organizations on the other side pay. It's a horrible thing to say, but that's how the system works.
[+] [-] Yoric|3 years ago|reply
I forgot how it was called. Something like "Safe Internet"?
[+] [-] chasil|3 years ago|reply
The man who perjured himself in front of congress?
I think not.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/19/james-clap...
[+] [-] aweiland|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TrispusAttucks|3 years ago|reply
--
"Better to die on your feet than live on your knees."
~ Emiliano Zapata
--
"Live Free or Die"
~ U.S. state of New Hampshire
--
"Give me liberty or give me death!"
~ Patrick Henry
--
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
~ Benjamin Franklin
--
"True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else."
~ Clarence Darrow
[+] [-] pessimizer|3 years ago|reply
~ Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. writing for a unanimous Supreme Court about why antiwar pamphleteers should be jailed.
--
"We think ... that [black people] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time [of America's founding] considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them."
~ Chief justice Roger Taney, for the Supreme Court majority in Dred Scott vs. Sandford
[+] [-] tomrod|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JohnWhigham|3 years ago|reply
We already have a sizeable portion of the population that wants people that don't agree with them to be silenced. And as long as they can all still buy their cattle feed at Wal-Mart, nothing is going to change for the better.
[+] [-] kornhole|3 years ago|reply
I anticipate that self-hosters, linux users, and people who are not Facebooked will be further castigated as radicals and worse in the future.
Also note the irony that Substack contains Google and Amazon trackers.
[+] [-] paulpauper|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pfraze|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] refurb|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lvl102|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] willis936|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gengiskush|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] programmarchy|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dathinab|3 years ago|reply
that is except if the US want's to become a fascist authoritarian state then yes it could be vital for that.
[+] [-] alphabetting|3 years ago|reply
Imagine how different the world would be if China beat us to the internet and the Great Firewall was the world standard, but with AGI it will probably be able to rapidly become more advanced and prevent others from coming close to it.
If the US were to get serious in AI investment I wouldn't care about breaking up big tech but that doesn't seem to be the case at all.
[+] [-] TMWNN|3 years ago|reply
That doesn't mean I approve of everything they do. That doesn't mean I can't or won't decry their putting thumbs on scales toward a certain type of bien-pensant ideology. That does mean that, overall, I am very, very glad that they are American instead of Russian, Chinese, or even British, French, or German.
[+] [-] cryptica|3 years ago|reply
Before Big Tech, we did not have such problems. This new narrative is pure self-serving propaganda, a figment of the imagination of corporate-funded lobbyists.
Free-market capitalism with freedom of speech is the recipe for economic prosperity. Has been for hundreds of years.
Some people will point to China as an attempt to show a counter-example ("Look at China, they're totalitarian and their economy has been booming.") but they conveniently forget the fact that China's growth has been happening during a time of general loosening of policies. The past 20 years in China have overall been characterized by an increasing tolerance for free-market capitalism and more freedom of speech compared to what it was before.
China came out of an extreme form of communism. Of course, any loosening would yield huge improvements! Also, they have over 1 billion people, of course any small improvement to even a small fraction of their population would have an impact globally.
The problem with the US and the west is not freedom of speech or the free market, it's our debt-based monetary system which is now based on soft money. The decline started in 1971 when USD became detached from the gold standard. It's no longer backed by anything; also, the growth in the currency supply has become unconstrained and the distribution mechanisms for all newly issued currency have been partially hijacked to serve corporate interests. The effects of this were not felt immediately. It's only in recent years that the negative effects of our soft-money system have become difficult to ignore.
The important thing to note is that no fiat system has ever survived more than a few hundred years. A monetary system which is founded on the endless debasement of its own currency is doomed to fail sooner or later. There has been hundreds of such monetary systems over thousands of years; not one which remains to this day. It has never worked and will never work in the long run. They're just pyramid schemes.
[+] [-] candiddevmike|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Aunche|3 years ago|reply
You have it backwards. We didn't end Bretton Woods because the government wanted to print money. The government was printing money, so they had to end Bretton Woods or else hyperinflation would occur. Right after WWII, Europe and Japan were desperate for capital to rebuild, so they were willing to exchange physical gold with made up paper, so it was free money while it lasted. If there were any real interest in maintaining a fiscal responsibility, they would have allowed investors to buy gold at the same price.
[+] [-] JKCalhoun|3 years ago|reply
No one reporting that apparently.
I agree with some of your points but accusations like that without any room for nuance do not resonate with me.
> The problem with the US and the west is not freedom of speech or the free market, it's our debt-based monetary system which is now based on soft money.
And I've seen convincing arguments claiming the exact opposite: that debt has allowed large enterprises, investments that have gone on to create untold capital. I'm still on the fence.
> The decline started in 1971…
I have seen the "WTF Happened in 1971?" web site.
[+] [-] jf22|3 years ago|reply
I'm not trying to be snarky, I have a genuine interest in your perspective.
[+] [-] arrosenberg|3 years ago|reply
Economic prosperity for a handful of wealthy Brits you mean? Regulated capitalism created the middle class, free market capitalism is doing its damnedest to undo that outcome.
[+] [-] the_optimist|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] formerkrogemp|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _bohm|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] incomingpain|3 years ago|reply
If for example you make a post that says "Vaccines cause autism". They dont have enough humans to moderate this. They write an algorithm that generally sees that and you get shadowbanned or equivalent.
What are all the subjects in which you may not talk about on twitter? Its not public knowledge. Open sourcing it means people can see the true bias.
[+] [-] kornhole|3 years ago|reply
This seems suspicious.
[+] [-] nova22033|3 years ago|reply
I could write an entire article about Tucker Carlson saying something and title it "Multi-millionaire frozen food heir says <something I don't like>"
[+] [-] bigbacaloa|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kurupt213|3 years ago|reply
I think the aggressiveness that the EU attacks big tech with is proof enough that the national security point is true.
[+] [-] jasfi|3 years ago|reply