Big tech rules us all, everywhere

[atlkvb]

Doubt that competition is the over-riding answer. The 'monopoly' position is so rich and powerful they have (and will continue, unless power is diminished) bought out these upstart competitors. As I see it, we are at another monopoly crises in this Country and the beed for breaking them up (as was the case years ago) is real and acute.

So they're big, and they're powerful, and they control many of the platforms folks in social media use. All true. They can't be replaced? They are banning innovation or entrepreneurs from creating other platforms? They can't be supplanted by superior content, or better access to open forums that provide valuable information?

I don't believe that.

 

[cam_blev]

So they're big, and they're powerful, and they control many of the platforms folks in social media use. All true. They can't be replaced? They are banning innovation or entrepreneurs from creating other platforms? They can't be supplanted by superior content, or better access to open forums that provide valuable information?

I don't believe that.

The major problem is that the government benefits from them existing and being a centralized space where majority of the discussion occurs, and because of that will do things to see that they succeed.

The issue we are seeing and will continue to see is the blurred line between government and private companies.
At least China doesn't lie about their strategy.

 

[atlkvb]

The major problem is that the government benefits from them existing and being a centralized space where majority of the discussion occurs, and because of that will do things to see that they succeed.

The issue we are seeing and will continue to see is the blurred line between government and private companies.
At least China doesn't lie about their strategy.

No argument there, everything you said here is true under the current scam big tech is running through the government. My question is who or what is preventing the next alternative? I refuse to believe this remains a static set of circumstances. Software and content developers are already working on alternatives and the next "big thing" will be the platforms and content that replace the current ones.

I'm so past Twitter...so done with Facebook. They DO NOT and CANNOT control how I think or what I say or how I choose communicate or express myself.

I'm not alone. I promise you that!

 

[NYC_Eer]

I don’t know that we know for sure we intentionally lied our way into Iraq. There was a lot of Intel being fed to us, some contradictory, as it always is. And I don’t know if you were old enough in the 90s to remember, but we were a hairs breath away from attacking Iraq numerous times between the end of the first gulf war and 03 when the second one started.

If we were going to truly lie our way into one, Iran would be the fight worth having. They definitely deserve to have their *** kicked. Had McCain been elected in 08, I’m about positive we would have collapsed the gap between Iraq and AFG and folded up Iran.

Please. The whole thing was sold to Congress, the UN and the rest of the world based on WMDs. That is why they trotted out Colin Powell, because he was believed to be above reproach. That is also why several Senators voted for it that wouldn’t have otherwise.

And the WMD charade was proven to be wrong and then a lie. If a Democrat was in office at the time, I’m sure you’d think differently.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Please. The whole thing was sold to Congress, the UN and the rest of the world based on WMDs. That is why they trotted out Colin Powell, because he was believed to be above reproach. That is also why several Senators voted for it that wouldn’t have otherwise.

And the WMD charade was proven to be wrong and then a lie. If a Democrat was in office at the time, I’m sure you’d think differently.

It was definitely proven to be wrong. I don’t agree that it was proven to be a lie.

 

[cam_blev]

It was definitely proven to be wrong. I don’t agree that it was proven to be a lie.

 

[Brushy Bill]

Just out of curiosity, how long have you been a libertarian?

 

[cam_blev]

Just out of curiosity, how long have you been a libertarian?

about 5 or 6 years

 

[Mntneer]

The large social media sites are no longer platforms. Their editorial decisions put them in the realm of being publishers.

Publishers which rely on a backbone that was funded, in large part, with tax payer dollars.

 

[NYC_Eer]

It was definitely proven to be wrong. I don’t agree that it was proven to be a lie.

So, lie may be too strong of a word. I think the neo-cons had an agenda had found supporting evidence to push that. They cherry picked what was presented and omitted what didn't support their agenda. I'm not sure if they outright lied. If I had to make a guess, they didn't care whether they were right or wrong though. They wanted to invade Iraq and they were going to do whatever it took to get there.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

I don’t think what was presented here was definitive proof that we lied our way into Iraq. As I said, there was a ton of Intel to suggest Saddam was stockpiling NBC agents being fed to us. There was information suggesting this was false. There was a culture within that administration for us to go into Iraq. They promoted the Intel they agreed with and downgraded the Intel that went against what they wanted to do.

We’re just not going to agree here.

 

[Mntneer]

I don’t think what was presented here was definitive proof that we lied our way into Iraq. As I said, there was a ton of Intel to suggest Saddam was stockpiling NBC agents being fed to us. There was information suggesting this was false. There was a culture within that administration for us to go into Iraq. They promoted the Intel they agreed with and downgraded the Intel that went against what they wanted to do.

We’re just not going to agree here.

Saddam himself made claims that he had the weapons, and at the end of the day do you hedge your bets and hope he doesn't and is lying to you?

At the end of the day, him (and more importantly his sons) no longer being in control of Iraq is better for the world.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

So, lie may be too strong of a word. I think the neo-cons had an agenda had found supporting evidence to push that. They cherry picked what was presented and omitted what didn't support their agenda. I'm not sure if they outright lied. If I had to make a guess, they didn't care whether they were right or wrong though. They wanted to invade Iraq and they were going to do whatever it took to get there.

I agree with this, and that’s my position as well. WMDs or no WMDs, the world is better without Saddam in it. Iraq is better without Saddam in it. Iran and the world will be better without their current regime in it.

 

[NYC_Eer]

I agree with this, and that’s my position as well. WMDs or no WMDs, the world is better without Saddam in it. Iraq is better without Saddam in it. Iran and the world will be better without their current regime in it.

Agree to a certain extent, but if you want to reduce foreign wars, which I believe you've stated on here numerous times, that was one that could've been averted. There are plenty of people that the world would be better without...Assad comes to mind, but we can't and shouldn't get rid of all of them via a ground assault. Saddam was not a big threat to us, and it bogged us down in an unwinnable war for years. It was a huge mistake.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Agree to a certain extent, but if you want to reduce foreign wars, which I believe you've stated on here numerous times, that was one that could've been averted. There are plenty of people that the world would be better without...Assad comes to mind, but we can't and shouldn't get rid of all of them via a ground assault. Saddam was not a big threat to us, and it bogged us down in an unwinnable war for years. It was a huge mistake.

The war was won by May of 03 when he was deposed.

The transition was bad. We fvcked that up horribly, but by the time Bush left office, Iraq was stable and they were having free elections.

When Obama pulled us out against the advice of literally everyone, it left a huge power vacuum. Coupled with Arab Spring and the Syrian civil war, the vacuum was filled by ISIS. Obama refused to address that in its infancy and Iraq was almost lost entirely and a failed state, much like what happened in Libya under him. Then, we went back into Iraq (even though he lied and said no boots on ground. I had boots on the ground when he lied). He half measured with ISIS the remainder of his Presidency and failed on that front. He also failed in AFG when he tried to pull us out and collapsed their economy allowing what was stable to be completely inflamed again.

Then comes Trump. Trump delegated over complete combat control from the WhiteHouse to operational commanders. Within a year, we’d destroyed the caliphate. Huge success. In AFG we implemented a different strategy. This one is still playing out, but both, the Taliban and the Kabul Govt are agreeing on 1 thing, they’re fighting back on ISIS trying to come in. They’re still fighting each other, but they want the foreigners gone, including us.

 

[cam_blev]

I don’t think what was presented here was definitive proof that we lied our way into Iraq. As I said, there was a ton of Intel to suggest Saddam was stockpiling NBC agents being fed to us. There was information suggesting this was false. There was a culture within that administration for us to go into Iraq. They promoted the Intel they agreed with and downgraded the Intel that went against what they wanted to do.

We’re just not going to agree here.

So your saying they didn't knowingly lie, they just misrepresented the information given to them to get the desired reaction from the peoipl of the US. The President of the US misrepresented the information he was given to get the support to go to war?
But you think it might be "wrong" to label that misrepresented information a "lie"?

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

So your saying they didn't knowingly lie, they just misrepresented the information given to them to get the desired reaction from the peoipl of the US. The President of the US misrepresented the information he was given to get the support to go to war?
But you think it might be "wrong" to label that misrepresented information a "lie"?

I think if you haven’t worked in the Intel world, you don’t understand the nuance of intelligence. Short of something like Assad actually using them, you don’t know for 100% certainty.

Like the bounties for US troops nonsense that was pushed. You get raw Intel reports that tell you whatever you want it to. You have to piece a bunch of **** together and still make an educated guess. They received a ton of Intel saying he was stockpiling NBC agents. They received a ton of Intel saying he was developing methods of delivery. You also get reports saying none of this is factual. They believed the ones saying it was reality, perhaps through confirmation bias. And when that happens, it becomes very hard to step back and see the whole picture, especially when it’s something that you want to do anyway. Saddam did himself no favors in the lead up to it. He had every opportunity to keep it from happening and he held the line on giving us the finger.

Look man, I get it, I was part of the invasion. I had brothers die in that invasion. I had scuds raining down on me for about 12 hours. I know how excited the faces were of the people we were liberating. So, regardless of what the pretext actually was, my conscience is clean.

 

[NYC_Eer]

The war was won by May of 03 when he was deposed.

The transition was bad. We fvcked that up horribly, but by the time Bush left office, Iraq was stable and they were having free elections.

When Obama pulled us out against the advice of literally everyone, it left a huge power vacuum. Coupled with Arab Spring and the Syrian civil war, the vacuum was filled by ISIS. Obama refused to address that in its infancy and Iraq was almost lost entirely and a failed state, much like what happened in Libya under him. Then, we went back into Iraq (even though he lied and said no boots on ground. I had boots on the ground when he lied). He half measured with ISIS the remainder of his Presidency and failed on that front. He also failed in AFG when he tried to pull us out and collapsed their economy allowing what was stable to be completely inflamed again.

Then comes Trump. Trump delegated over complete combat control from the WhiteHouse to operational commanders. Within a year, we’d destroyed the caliphate. Huge success. In AFG we implemented a different strategy. This one is still playing out, but both, the Taliban and the Kabul Govt are agreeing on 1 thing, they’re fighting back on ISIS trying to come in. They’re still fighting each other, but they want the foreigners gone, including us.

We shouldn't have been there in the first place, and that **** was ****** up from the time Bremer outlawed the Baath Party...well before Obama was in office. He inherited a **** show. He made mistakes, but blaming the Iraq mess on him is partisan BS.

 

[NYC_Eer]

So your saying they didn't knowingly lie, they just misrepresented the information given to them to get the desired reaction from the peoipl of the US. The President of the US misrepresented the information he was given to get the support to go to war?
But you think it might be "wrong" to label that misrepresented information a "lie"?

Personally I think Bush was a half-wit. He was stupid, but I don't think he knowingly lied. I think the neo-cons ran his Presidency and he didn't know what their actual plan was. If Bush misrepresented anything it was by unwittingly.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

We shouldn't have been there in the first place, and that **** was ****ed up from the time Bremer outlawed the Baath Party...well before Obama was in office. He inherited a **** show. He made mistakes, but blaming the Iraq mess on him is partisan BS.

Iraq was stable when Obama took office. That is a fact. He was President for 3 years before we pulled out. He and Hillary refused to work a SOFA to keep troops there. Literally everyone said it was going to blow up again because they weren’t capable enough for us to leave. Not to mention the ISIS angle.

He tried to fulfill a campaign promise against the advice of his JCOS and Intel Community. Period.

He owns every bit of ISIS’s reign of terror for those 3 years.

 

[cam_blev]

I think if you haven’t worked in the Intel world, you don’t understand the nuance of intelligence. Short of something like Assad actually using them, you don’t know for 100% certainty.

Like the bounties for US troops nonsense that was pushed. You get raw Intel reports that tell you whatever you want it to. You have to piece a bunch of **** together and still make an educated guess. They received a ton of Intel saying he was stockpiling NBC agents. They received a ton of Intel saying he was developing methods of delivery. You also get reports saying none of this is factual. They believed the ones saying it was reality, perhaps through confirmation bias. And when that happens, it becomes very hard to step back and see the whole picture, especially when it’s something that you want to do anyway. Saddam did himself no favors in the lead up to it. He had every opportunity to keep it from happening and he held the line on giving us the finger.

Look man, I get it, I was part of the invasion. I had brothers die in that invasion. I had scuds raining down on me for about 12 hours. I know how excited the faces were of the people we were liberating. So, regardless of what the pretext actually was, my conscience is clean.

They "believe" and push whatever narrative fits their plans. Nothing they say is to inform the people of the truth, everything they say is to get their desired reaction from the people.
They already had plans to go to war with Iraq.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

They "believe" and push whatever narrative fits their plans. Nothing they say is to inform the people of the truth, everything they say is to get their desired reaction from the people.
They already had plans to go to war with Iraq.

You seem to spend A LOT of time on YouTube.

 

[cam_blev]

You seem to spend A LOT of time on YouTube.

its easy to find a video of something someone said in an interview and it makes it easier to give videos of Generals and CIA officials making my point for me particularly in this case when discussing with ex-military

 

[WVUCOOPER]

its easy to find a video of something someone said in an interview and it makes it easier to give videos of Generals and CIA officials making my point for me particularly in this case when discussing with ex-military

Not sure it makes your point. Is this backed up by evidence? If 2 Generals and CIA officials denied it, would you believe them or only the ones that confirm how you already feel?

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

They "believe" and push whatever narrative fits their plans. Nothing they say is to inform the people of the truth, everything they say is to get their desired reaction from the people.
They already had plans to go to war with Iraq.

Of course we had plans. You’re taking **** waaaaay out of context. Iraq had been being gamed for 10 years with established Op Plans, the same as every other potential adversary. Offensive and Defensive. Why do you think we’re able to move and execute so quickly on stuff? We pull out the binder and go, step 1 do this. It’s how you mobilize millions of men, 1000s of tanks, airplanes and all of the support equipment halfway around the world within a matter of months.

Again, you’re falling victim for the same **** the Bush admin did. You’re convinced that you have it figured out and have all of this supporting information and ignoring rational explanations and added context. Congrats, you’re a Bushy.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Not sure it makes your point. Is this backed up by evidence? If 2 Generals and CIA officials denied it, would you believe them or only the ones that confirm how you already feel?

And never mind the context of that interview, when it was given, and why.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

And never mind the context of that interview, when it was given, and why.

Would it surprise me the DOD had plans to go to war with x amount of countries? No. But how seriously was it ever considered? Is preparedness a sign of intent? This

 

[NYC_Eer]

You seem to spend A LOT of time on YouTube.

This is neither here nor there regarding this topic, but you are aware most videos are either hosted or reposted in YouTube correct? And that you can find videos that happen to be on YouTube without actually having to visit YouTube to search for them?

The you spend too much time on YouTube argument seems a little silly.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

This is neither here nor there regarding this topic, but you are aware most videos are either hosted or reposted in YouTube correct? And that you can find videos that happen to be on YouTube without actually having to visit YouTube to search for them?

The you spend too much time on YouTube argument seems a little silly.

Was it an argument or an observation? I think posting videos, in general, is a lazy way to argue.

 

[cam_blev]

And never mind the context of that interview, when it was given, and why.

The point is it was given before the the WMD stuff even happened. They already wanted regime change in the region and THEN after the plan was already in place conveniently misrepresented information to get the support of the people.
Gulf of Tonkin?

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

The point is it was given before the the WMD stuff even happened. They already wanted regime change in the region and THEN after the plan was already in place conveniently misrepresented information to get the support of the people.
Gulf of Tonkin?

Ok man, I’m not going to change your mind. I don’t really care. Was just trying to help you out. You’re convinced there is some big cabal of conspiracy on this instead of the simpler truth.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Would it surprise me the DOD had plans to go to war with x amount of countries? No. But how seriously was it ever considered? Is preparedness a sign of intent? This

Quite a few times under Clinton. The Bosnia and Somalia thing kind of scared them away from it. Why Bush 41 didn’t just finish the job in 91, I have no idea. They were weeks away from toppling Saddam, then. Just dumb to pull up short.

With respect to intent, no idea. I don’t think in the wake of 9/11 that that administration was going to wait and find out the hard way. There was enough Intel to suggest it was happening. Saddam could’ve just played ball with the inspectors and allowed unfettered access to completely clear it up and save his regime. He was busy rattling his sword and I guess thought we’d just fire a couple of tomahawks and call it a day. Beginning in Dec of 02, we were going. Nothing short of his complete capitulation to the UN and our demands was going to stop it. For context, I hit the ground the day the shuttle came apart over TX. I don’t know what the hell he was thinking we’d do or how he’d stay alive. Regardless, he gone and dead now.

Iran will be next, whether it’s in 2 years or 10, but that regime will be gone. It wouldn’t surprise me if it happened under Biden, he’s certainly aligned himself with some hawks.