[jesselawson]

I’m not sure I understand the analogy. To me there’s a difference between a former intelligence general being courted by a private company that sells services for rapidly and semi-autonomously generating content that bad actors have used and will likely continue to use for influencing geopolitical public sentiment, and a pharmaceutical company that does not sell similar technology.

[dialup_sounds]

The point is that anybody can make baseless insinuations about what a board appointment means that have nothing to do with the actual qualifications of the person.

[jesselawson]

Perhaps others may make inferences about what a board appointment to a company with growing influence in government security matters means based on the appointee’s history in government security leadership.