But is that a crime? Not a rhetorical or smartass question, legitimately wondering if that would be a crime.
US 2024 Presidential Election
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
You showed us the test, a lot of which does seem pretty poorly composed and weighted, yes.
Well, you showed us that a motivation they had in modifying the hiring process was diversity. You haven't drawn any credible connection between it and the questions you're objecting to, other than speculation that they were used as proxy characteristics.
An intended result of any hiring process's first stage is to filter out most of the candidates. You claimed something very different: that these questions intended to throw out candidates based on their RNO or sex.
Wait, if they were filtered out by failing to reach the pass rate of this test, then they didn't pass.
Right now Doug Ford, the right-wing Conservative Premier of Ontario is pretty much the most vocally anti-Trump of the major Canadian politicians. Ontario has an election coming up so Ford (a very savvy politician) is pretty much betting his political future on the fact that this represents the view of the majority of voters in Ontario.
So Trump- who criticized Biden for "playing favorites in the market"- is floating the idea of having the government outright buy a company. For what? What strategic purpose does this serve for the country? Is it going to do more for us than USAID did?
Oh yeah, by the way, actual President of the United States Elon Musk wants USAID shut down, calling it a "criminal organization".
What is USAID, the foreign assistance agency the Trump administration wants to shut down?
Established by President John F. Kennedy in 1961, the U.S. Agency for International Development provides billions in humanitarian assistance overseas.
I mean, that's the fascinating thing about that brand of the right wing. They love a certain amount of mutual support and joint purpose, but at the end of the day they are nationalists. Whilst its nice to have bonds of convenience between nationalists of different states when the main aim is winning elections against the hated liberal-left, once they gain power they're all about screwing over other countries, and next thing you know they're all at each other's throats.
Some ideas, from bad to good.
I doubt they'd be so brazenly corrupt, but they could use Federal funds to buy it, and then offload the shares super-cheap to themselves: Musk, Trump Media and Technology Group, etc.
One might note that most unscrupulous governments have very happily corrupted media that are government owned to benefit themselves. Typically this is state TV/radio broadcasters and newspapers. But why not online media? It's entirely feasible the Federal government could buy TikTok, install a very ideological board to run it, who then ensure the algorithm favours their ideology and party.
If the USA is worried that TikTok is a security risk because China can acquire user data out of TikTok, so can the USA easily acquire user data from it if they own it. Yummy!
One can argue the simple aim of hammering TikTok was to spite China: a refusal to allow China to have a massive success story (at least in the US market). But it's valuable. If no US company is willing to buy it, why not have the USA buy it? The alternative presumably is that it just dies (in the USA).
Plenty of economists argue that it is beneficial for states - even ones without massive oil slush funds - to create their own sovereign wealth funds. The USA could very reasonably also do so. Why not start with TikTok given that it has decided it needs to be sold?
Maybe I'm too Montanan for this, but how does the government get around to buying a multi-national tech company that doesn't want to be sold?
Like, eminent domain, I get, but that's actual stuff. Land. Buildings. Stuff that doesn't vanish when the power goes out. I guess there's servers to seize, but what's stopping Bytedance from just not having USTok and Ticktok interact, or firing up the ol' electro-magnets?
Like, eminent domain, I get, but that's actual stuff. Land. Buildings. Stuff that doesn't vanish when the power goes out. I guess there's servers to seize, but what's stopping Bytedance from just not having USTok and Ticktok interact, or firing up the ol' electro-magnets?
Trump can just tell Musk or Zuckerberg to give him whatever information he wants and they'll do it without even pausing in sucking his dick.
Doxxing in and of itself isn't illegal but it often does lead to other criminal offenses like stalking, intimidation and identity theft.
If these people are harmed as a result of this, that's just more ammo for Trump and Musk.
Elon Musk Suggests Getting Rid Of All Regulations In Midnight Call
"If it's not possible now, it'll never be possible," Musk said of his proposal to simply ignore all federal regulation as a baseline.
If a 10th of what people think is in there is actually in there, the US is fucked
So far, it's already way past 10% and we are two weeks in
Buying Tiktok?So Trump- who criticized Biden for "playing favorites in the market"- is floating the idea of having the government outright buy a company. For what? What strategic purpose does this serve for the country? Is it going to do more for us than USAID did?
Oh yeah, by the way, actual President of the United States Elon Musk wants USAID shut down, calling it a "criminal organization".
What is USAID, the foreign assistance agency the Trump administration wants to shut down?
Established by President John F. Kennedy in 1961, the U.S. Agency for International Development provides billions in humanitarian assistance overseas.www.nbcnews.com
I don't know if you have noticed but all other major social media is now controlled by right wingers. Tiktok I'd last man standing...
It's been the plan the whole time
Fun tidbit I found out today. The Wicked book, written in the 90s, had a bunch of young people obsessed technology called ticktockers...
I'm not sure they would. They both run global businesses which risk huge damage if their customers believed that they would just hand over information to the US government at a whim. Here they are relying on the principle that the USA has a robust legal system that is supposed to constrain what the US government can do, thus providing a level of security. Contrast with China, which has a law that appears to more overtly say that any company must hand over data on request from the Chinese government, and why there are plenty of people who decline to use some Chinese goods and services.
Iirc the US does actually have a similar law (well, several, but most relevant was the now thankfully expired Patriot act).
The only exceptions are information about US citizens. But the rest is fair game. And the EU and US butted heads about this several times. That is also why the European Courts cancelled the safe harbor agreement and why the EU later negotiated some special "EU-US-privacy shield" which the EU courts later struck down again because the US couldn't keep its fingers from EU users Facebook data. The third attempts is in negotiation but currently all those US and Chinese companies are basically required to keep most of that data in the EU under EU law even if compliance is an issue here.
I don't feel my data more secure with US companies than with Chinese ones when it comes to intrusive governments. And i am very glad i am in the EU with lawmakers and courts protecting our information.
However I don't know how much or if any protection UK citizens get these days.
Last edited:
It does, but as I understand there are (theoretically) more legal safeguards, that the government or law enforcement agencies are expected to provide a justification that requires independent legal permission from the judiciary for anyone they want information on. I mean, basically, akin to a search warrant. In practice that might be relatively thin, but it's still better than China which I think would face no meaningful obstructions at all if it demanded data.
Yes, but that was done via secret courts (FISC) that seem to have given away the information every time anyway. That is not proper oversight. It got so bad that even congress eventually bothered to take a deeper look at what happened.
I don't feel there any meaningful difference between China and the US when it comes to protecting data of foreigners from nosy governments or other misuse.
Last edited:
If a company is crippled by the government, the company is all but valueless and the shareholders lose their money. Therefore, a threat to cripple the company may cause the shareholders to sell because it's the only way they're getting their money back.
Or, they could agree to lose the money and terminate the company as a great big "Fuck you" to the country that stole their business. But generally, investors want their money back.
