Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1375231)	9/26/2022 1:27:56 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577031

>> What Zuck did was legal and all within the boundaries of the 1st amendment. What I'm referring to is the corrupt payment of a half billion cash to selected counties' election operations to fund specifically DEMOCRAT vote-getting. This is one of the top two most important means by which the 2020 election was "rigged". It was legal, in the same way that a tax loophole is legal. It is legal, but everyone pretty much knows it is cheating (about 1/2 of states have now outlawed this corrupt activity, essentially, all "red" states; "blue" state governors are vetoing the legislation, or the legislation is never happening at all). In an era where modern data management techniques, combined with Facebook's data -- many petabytes and perhaps, I guess, exabytes of it, can pin down voters to the state/county/city/town/block and perhaps house number of where the next Democrat voter can be found, a decision by private individuals to inordinately fund the capture of just Democrat votes or just Republican votes, is a serious danger to democracy. (Cambridge Analytica on steriods) Zuckerberg pinpointed where upping the amount spent to get selected votes was easy. As a result, they were able to spend up to $11 to capture a blue vote, while moderating spending on red votes at around $2-3/vote. If you know how people are going to vote in a given location, you can make it easy for them, but not the other guy. That is what was done. As to your previous reply, I'd respond as follows: So, my question is, do you see that as legal and therefore acceptable? You and I both know that a lot of stuff is legal that is unfair, corrupt, dirty, pretty much everything except illegal. On the issue you mentioned, censorship, I do believe we are in a dangerous place when platforms become so powerful they effectively control speech. Facebook and Twitter have both admitted, for example, shutting down coverage of the Biden Laptop which was important. And it is still shutdown -- the FBI is effectively back-burnering this essential information for voters that shows the corruption of Joe Biden. I've never seen you endorse corruption and I don't think you would. But we've reached a new era where we must do something to guarantee distribution of important information in the election process. If the CEO of Salesforce.com wants avoid red states, that's his business. But it may be time to interpret free speech differently -- the point is Zuckerberg has the power to control speech, and he used it to defeat Trump in the last election. There is absolutely no doubt about it.