- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
When called out on it, they then doubled down on this dogshit take: https://archive.ph/quYyb
When called out on it, they then doubled down on this dogshit take: https://archive.ph/quYyb
How is that the tables turning? That would imply that the far-right party that claimed to be pro-consumer had become the center-right instead of going even further right. The table has moved, not turned.
Besides, the claim in the topical tweet was that the Dems had been the party of the “little guy”, whereas you paint them as the corporate shills we both agree they’ve been for a while now.
My argument isn’t that the Dems haven’t gotten worse, it’s that the Reps have become even worse. Unfortunately, inaction doesn’t shift the Overton Window, and the Reps’ position should long have been so untenable that a right-drift by the Dems would have opened a space to their left. But that isn’t what happened, and pretending that this is a change for the better is short-sighted.
Remember that Antitrust proceedings don’t hinge on a single General Attorney prosecuting them, but on the courts. A noble knight taking charge doesn’t help if they run up against a stacked wall of pro-corporate judges. The endorsement this post is about is hollow.
Endorsement? What do you think he endorsed in this post? Because he certainly did not endorse Trump or the Republican party.
Also, both parties have gotten worse. Did you not see the Democrats saying that they were pro fracking and genocide a few months ago?
But, on the issue being discussed (antitrust) it does appear that the tables have turned. Well, at least for this pick. Probably, as you say, any of her actions will be blocked for billionaires who paid off Trump (as would certainly be the case for the Dems too)
“10 years ago, Republicans were the party of big business and Dems stood for the little guy, but today the tables have completely turned.”
This implies he thinks the Reps are now the party of the little guy, which in the context of going after Big Tech sounds like an endorsement. This isn’t a “The Dems have failed us, but maybe the Reps will come through for once” in acknowledgement that the Reps are at least just as deep in corporate pockets, it’s an implication that the coin has flipped entirely.
“[T]he current antitrust actions against Big Tech were started under the first Trump admin.”
Again, sounds like he thinks rhe Trump admin did well, or at least seems to defend them.
Oh no, I was completely agreeing with you on that. That’s my point: the table hasn’t turned, it has moved.
The pick is meaningless until it produces results. If I make a gesture of donating to charity, except that charity just ends up lining my pockets again, my generosity is a farce to make me look good without actually sacrificing much. In this case, the pick is a wonderful way to pretend he’s doing something good, while…
…knowing that nothing will actually change as long as his cronies sit on the courts.
Hence: I’ll believe that the tables have turned when that turn becomes visible rather than a vapid gesture.
And a CEO should most certainly know these mechanisms better than me, not to mention all the other points he’s so conveniently ignoring.