Elizabeth Warren reveals her plan to break up Big Tech

boing
41

Ya the biggest thing I hate about “Biden would beat Trump bs” is Sanders had and possibly still has a better electoral map than Trump. Something like 238 to 135. Bernie is the best candidate to beat Trump hands down. Several people that voted for Trump, voted for Bernie in the primary. Clinton alienated those voters. She was a terrible flawed candidate and Biden will most likely cast the same type of shadow.

All of the Clintonians better get on the Bernie train is all I’m saying, unless you want to reboard the crazy train for another four years.

2 Likes
42

[signs up for “would-be” Grand Jury Subject, schizophrenic, Retreat In Chief, etc.]

Hey, whose meme is Dr. Maslow Pinkwell, PhD? I guess I don’t get the Pinkwell reference. @MPinkwell …hm. (Came in on a meme of a book called “DON’T : An advice book for those interested in leadership.”)

4 Likes
43

And now we’re really far off-topic, but that’s such an interesting issue, I have to focus on it. If there’s a concrete example of Fox News (and other conservative-audience-only media) alone keeping an issue in the eyes of the general public, I’m eager to hear the example(s), they would really bear thinking about.

Both birtherism and emails were picked up by the networks and major dailies. Benghazi was kept going by congressional inquiries that necessitated coverage.

But again, the “texas bar” story left the papers and networks as fast as it came up, perhaps because the same document stated that race would not be used in any way for evaluation, just for stats, so the claim was meaningless to Warren’s advancement in life.

My ability to research media focus is limited to google news searches, plus the websites of nbc, abc, and cbs - but searches on all four for “warren texas bar” shows stories ranging from Feb 8 to Feb 12, nothing after. Oh, and I have NYT and WaPo subscriptions, so searched there, too. Same.

Tentatively, I have to stand by my original contention that the issue is already dying everywhere but in conservative press sites.

The media these days relentlessly pursue what grabs eyeballs. If they dropped the latest Warren/First-Nations news four days after it came out, I think it’s because it’s not grabbing the attention of the general public.

…just realized I could do one more search: Fox itself. Nothing recent except an opinion column - and a news story from yesterday about this same topic. Unlike this BoingBoing thread, it neither mentioned the issue in the story, nor in the comments until I got one that started with “Fauxcahontas stepped out of her teepee…” about a page down. Frankly, I think Warren’s outrageous (to them) policy proposals are crowding out this issue, even on Fox. Quite an achievement of trolling. If you can call serious policy proposals “trolling”.

2 Likes
44

After reading about the strategy involved in her proposals, I’m actually pretty impressed with how savvy they are in terms of being specific enough but also appropriately systemic so as to avoid a backfiring regulatory-capture scenario.

The bright-line approach she talks about seems far more likely to be effective toward the goal of increasing market dynamism than some convoluted raft of game-able rules or merely loading up taxes, locking in perverse synergies.

2 Likes
45

That’s a “scandal” only in a specific, fairly novel sense. No one is actually scandalised by it. Like “Hillary’s emails”, it’s at most an arbitrary bell at which Republican voters can be trained to bark on command. It’s foolish to respond to such a shibboleth as a genuine argument, because it’s not, and once you’d wasted your time responding, they would just pick another, equally vapid shibboleth.

I doubt there is a single American voter who would be put off voting for Warren because she believed a family story about having Cherokee ancestors. There are millions who would not vote for her because Fox News ordered them not to, but it’s irrelevant what they pretend their “reason” to be.

I think that’s the nub of what has gone wrong with News. In the traditional model, you have a relative handful of outlets, each with their own editorial voice and their own in-house story pipelines. They will pick up on important stories from other outlets, but it’s against their interest to simply quote their competitors; if they can’t and/or don’t want to develop a story themselves, they won’t amplify its reach. So there’s a class of editors who collectively determine what is newsworthy, and while that’s not problem-free, it ensures a certain standard of quality. But now Twitter and Facebook are treated as if they were peers in that ecosystem, and it totally changes the dynamic. Now an op-ed in the New York Times can become a big story on Twitter, which in turn becomes a front-page story in the Times (etc). No one is really in control of what is The News, which sounds good in some ways, but leaves the door wide open to all kinds of mass hysteria that would previously have met a wall of editors saying “this is nonsense”. It’s given us #MeToo, but also Brexit, anti-immigrant hysteria, anti-vaxxers, Turmp and Russian psy-ops.

Check out the videos of him at the Clarence Thomas hearings.

I don’t really know much about Biden either, but he seems like he’d be very pro-status quo and probably the least savvy of any candidate when it comes to the aforementioned GOP bad-faith driving trollies. Like, pretending that Mitch McConnell can be reasoned with and stuff, which is the failure mode Democrats should have learned to avoid a couple of decades ago, and which is inexcusable at this point.

2 Likes
46

this i agree with. they both have hope, and they’ll both be battles. so pick your battles.

the green new deal is something we literally can’t live without. add in medicare for all… i feel those would be huge wins in the next presidency.

( and actually, end ice. cause that horrible org has got to go. )

breaking up amazon and google could be good, but it’s not high on my pick list

2 Likes
47

I think you’re asking for an example of a contradiction.

  1. If the topic makes it to the general public then by definition the networks and major dailies are covering it too.
  2. Fox News and the GOP are pretty in sync. If one starts pushing a line the other will follow.

With that clarification, the migrant caravan before the November election is the perfect example. Trump and Fox News turned that into a major story.

The issue isn’t that she thought she had Cherokee ancestors. This issue is that a middle class white woman identified herself as Native American in a professional context, possibly for the purposes of professional advancement.

That is actually somewhat offensive, she never had to deal with discrimination due to being identifiably native, or had to deal with the cultural baggage of the reservation system and all the adversity that comes with that. And if she actually did do it for professional advancement she potentially took an opportunity away from an actual aboriginal who was trying to overcome obstacles she couldn’t imagine.

That is the problem with her candidacy. She’s never presented a good answer as to what she was doing, particularly when the Texas bar card undercut her first explanation. It’s not a problem now because Trump and Fox News aren’t talking about it. But they can start talking about it anytime they want and it will become an issue.

This is basically the mistake I made with Clinton, I thought she’d be fine in the general because the emails were a pretty harmless scandal, and people donating to the Clinton foundation before looking for political favours was just standard politics. But it’s not about the seriousness of the scandal but whether you have a response to it. And Clinton never had an answer to the emails or the donations to her foundation, nor does Warren have an answer to identifying as native.

2 Likes
48

how will it effect her democracy
from here to eternity

49

Native Americans are a big chunk of the blue votes in red states. It’s strategic - you can’t win an election with their votes but you certainly can tilt a tight primary.

1 Like
50

I would suggest as a rule of thumb: if you don’t think a question is important, then don’t demand an answer on behalf of some hypothetical third party, because that is how trollies get you to carry water for them.

You can outsource this judgment, and let the Republican party decide for you what questions Must Be Answered. But then you’re not going to vote for Warren in any event.

51

“If there’s a concrete example of Fox News (and other conservative-audience-only media) alone keeping an issue in the eyes of the general public…”
…
" I think you’re asking for an example of a contradiction…If the topic makes it to the general public then by definition the networks and major dailies are covering it too."

Not at all by definition. Fox has pushed and pushed things like the dangers of “The New Black Panthers”, “MS-13” and the aforementioned “Seth Rich Controversy”, for three instances.

These issues can be judged as of great public impact without counting the number of stories on the 3 major networks or major daily papers, by polling, to actually ask the public themselves, rather than the journos, what concerns them.

On the other hand, some issues like taxing wealth and universal medical care turned out to be of great concern to the public without much coverage by the majors, who had to scramble to make up - as they did, belatedly and with much breast-beating of shame, about Trump voters themselves after Trump won.

This was done with MS-13, with predictable results:

…Trump supporters view MS-13 as a threat, nobody else does.

And I found an article about how everybody hates the “New Black Panther Party”. From 2013. Nothing since. Megyn Kelly devoted 45 segments to them, but it just didn’t take.

Other things that Fox pushes do catch on. (“Swift Boating”). But not everything, and, to get back to Elizabeth Warren and her bombardment of the news media with actual policy proposals - ones that stimulate discussion rather than yawns - I don’t think that the “Pocahontas smear” is going to outshout the policy stories. I notice that THIS story is not accompanied, even on Fox, by mention of the smear - because when you report the trivial and the consequential in the same story, you highlight the triviality.

1 Like
52

Anyone can manufacture generic drugs, it’s the FDA, the lawyers and the manufacturing infrastructure required that create the barrier. I’m ok with those barriers, they make drugs safer.

53

Following that rule of thumb is exactly the mistake I made in supporting Clinton over Sanders. In politics it doesn’t matter if you’re right, it matters what resonates with the media. And Warren’s claims of ancestry, just like Clinton’s emails, are something that can seriously resonate if Trump/Fox start pushing them again.

Let me put it this way. You’re in a battle with the GOP, Warren’s controversy is a serious vulnerability, you don’t want to talk about it because no one like looking at their own weaknesses. But that is exactly the place where Trump is going. So you can just walk into the general election ignoring a major weakness and maybe give him another 4 years, or you can address it before hand and don’t get caught offguard when Trump does the same thing he always does.

I’m Canadian. That was a given.

54

Yeah, because the Sanders people were so very gracious and enthusiastic towards Hillary when she was running in the general. Oh, wait, they weren’t. Either through their own spite or nudged by Russian propaganda, they seemed to hate Hillary (and still hate Hillary) more than they ever disliked Trump or any GOP candidate.

And all this anti-Biden propaganda… Aren’t you just a little suspicious why it’s all popping up now? Or do you just accept and consume it the same way you consumed the anti-Hillary propaganda in 2016?

Buttery Emails? Still? ты русский, товарищ? What about phone calls? What about stamped correspondence? What about shout-outs? What about refrigerator Post-its? What about whispers? Really we needed all these things investigated before we could consider Hillary for her candidacy.

55

Probably because we remember how well running a moderate worked last time. Also wouldn’t you be sour if you were cheated out of the nomination by someone who essentially purchased the DNC? You don’t have to pay for people to dislike an administration that kow tow’d to corporations and forgot about everyday Americans.

56

Did you pay attention to what happened in 1992, 1996, 2008, 2012?

And, using your people’s own fractured logic, it’s not moderate policies, it’s Hillary. She could never win because she is Hillary.

You seem to want to repeat what happened in 1972.

Also wouldn’t you be sour if you were cheated out of the nomination

Garbage. Perhaps if Sanders had actually spent a second of time inside the Democratic party, he might have had more traction. Completely his fault that DNC workers were more sympathetic to an actual Democrat. (And if you’re referring to the Superdelegates: they voted for the majority, so no “cheating”.)

by someone who essentially purchased the DNC?

More. Garbage.

kow tow’d to corporations and forgot about everyday Americans.

She really kowtowed like mad when she was fighting for women’s rights and health care for the US. Oh wait, she didn’t.

Anyway, thank you for a Greatest Hits version of a delusional Bernie Sanders stan. I think what’s most baffling/disappointing about Sanders supporters is, they seem to hate, and find differences with, Hillary and the DNC more than they do with the GOP. (And/or they say the DNC and GOP are “the same thing.”) This incoherence is why im mentally prepared for 6 more years of Trump.

57

[App store code] cmd+c
[app store code] cmd+v

Rename to “Apple OS Store” which is separate from the original app store. Problem solved.

58

Can we break up the rest of the monopolies too?

59

Yep. Trump doesn’t need to apologize, because he’s never done anything wrong, and if he did, it wasn’t that bad. And if it was, it’s not a big deal. And if it was, it wasn’t his fault. And if it was, he didn’t mean it. And if he did, you deserved it.

60

It shall be called The Alphabet Proviso.