It's not a far out conspiracy theory. TikTok was already going all in with Google Cloud as their tech partner (which is a more obvious choice than Oracle) and was ready to go all in on with Google until Donald reiterated, publicly, his demand that the US "get a cut" of any deal. To Donald, the US "getting a cut" and his friends/himself profiting are likely synonymous. His personal interest and the national interest are the same, in his mind.
That's too complicated, there is no way to know Larry would have ended up with the win like this.
TikTok was banned for 2 reasons:
1) Users on TT ganged together to screw up Trump's GOP convention. This means a) raising vengeful ire of Trump and b) serious implications for material political intervention by a an outside entity. Even though I don't think for a second the CCP had anything to do with it, the risk is materai.
2) National Security Risk. This is not a joke, almost all Chinese companies have 'CCP party apparatus', within the company to make sure they are following the party line, and they will hand over data for whatever purpose at anytime. Imagine having every US politician, Academic, CEO, Investors social medial - that's a lot of compromised individuals and you could compromise the country very quickly.
The reason TT should not be allowed even before 1 and 2 which are more controversial is simply trade - if foreign companies have to jump through hoops to play in China, those same hoops should be applied here tit-for-tat. Just on the basis of fair trade alone.
FYI Trump's bit about 'taking a cut' is just laughable, I honestly think he doesn't understand what 'trade' is, it's like he cannot seem to differentiate between 'his personal business' and anything else. Just like he cannot fathom how nations interact with one another, and sees everything in very personal terms i.e. with Putin, Erdogan etc..
"All in": What is the guarantee that their entire infrastructure will be on Google Cloud? You are assuming a lot about how their backend infrastructure is structured.
> was ready to go all in on with Google until Donald reiterated, publicly, his demand that the US "get a cut" of any deal
Define "all in". For me, all in is when the entire company gets bought out by Google.
> his friends/himself profiting are likely synonymous. His personal interest and the national interest are the same, in his mind.
Far from a conspiracy theory, Larry Ellison has been very vocal in his support of Trump (and a major donor!), and Safra Catz actually served on the Trump transition team.
> Far from a conspiracy theory, Larry Ellison has been very vocal in his support of Trump (and a major donor!), and Safra Catz actually served on the Trump transition team.
I don't understand. Is being a donor automatically amount to corruption/illegal activity in the United States? I thought corporate donations to political parties were legal in the United States. If it is legal I don't see why the need to construct a conspiracy theory around it?
European here: donor/lobbying imho is the legalized bribing in the USA. It is annoying some people when I phrase it like this, but hey, people who sit on a big chair tend to want to continue sitting on said chair. And donors' cash helps to that objective. So yes, I don't care if it's Larry or John, or pual, or Ringo, or George, if I pay you money to stay in power, and in exchange I get to benefit from that, you can call it what you want. I call it bribing/kickback/fraud/etc.
Money went from person A to person B. Person B made a decision so only person A profitted. I see a pattern. Don't you?
If you only look at cash flows, you'll have to make arbitrary judgement what constitutes bribery and dependence and what does not. For example: are state-funded media companies independent or do they serve the government? What about state-subsidized media companies? What about the German model, where the state sets the height, helps with the collection, but doesn't directly fund the media companies (they're funded via a totally-not-a-tax "fee" that applies to every household, whether it has the ability to consume the media products or not)?
Political donations aren't going to a person, they're going to their campaign, so they can't just pocket the money and write a thank-you-note.
There's also a very benign reading of political donations: you give to a candidate because you expect them to be the best for the country, and what's best for the country is usually good for you as well, ergo you benefit. If there's a stated and clear quid pro quo, it's bribery, but otherwise: meh.
In this case, as far as I understand, it wasn't Trump that made the decision who TikTok would be sold to, he just decided it had to be an American company.
Then that is how it is in the rest of the World. I don't see why USA should be held with a different set of standards when literally all elections fought in every part of the world works through donations (be it corporate or private citizens). Very few countries banned corporate donations and those who did actually made it even worse. Take Brazil for instance: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/here-s-what-happened-...
Only the rich could contest elections (as they used their own money). People from lower/middle income strata hardly received any donations.
Banning corporate donations doesn't stop corporates from influencing elections. Corporates can themselves fund and run campaigns on individual issues that concern them and mobilize support with clever messaging.
> Money went from person A to person B. Person B made a decision so only person A profitted. I see a pattern. Don't you?
Yes everyone can see a "pattern" but that doesn't amount to corruption. That amounts to just an allegation. An allegation needs to be established through some legal route where in it is concluded without shred of doubt that the office was misused for helping out someone. Either a money/document/wiretapping trail that can connect the two things. If you cannot establish it then it remains a "conspiracy theory". Nothing more.
Rich getting mega-rich, and poor remain in poverty.
If that is an allegation, then I am a conspiracy freak (I am not).
When we speak about USA and you bring Brazil in the discussion (whataboutism), you lower the bar. My "ideal" societies (progress, freedom, respect, and other such 'metrics') do NOT include Brazil, China, Iran, Russia, North Korea, Turkey. Brazil has selected as a ruler a former army general* who enjoys militarisation and is a fan of a dictatorship. I think the discussion ends here. Brazil may be doing 100 other things "good", but "showed that in 2010, about 6 percent of the Brazilian population lived in favelas and other slums" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Favela). 6%? Seriously?
I (-apologies for the bias-) prefer to hold in highest standards the EU, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a very few more. Although imperfect, still far better standard of Living than other countries/regiions.
That said, my ideal society is a Star Trek (TNG) one, where everyone contributes how they can, in a balance matter, everyone has free healthcare, everyone has a food replicator and never goes hungry.
*to avoid any misunderstanding, I am a honorable discharged army officer (of my country - NATO member), and I respect the Military-ies and what Military represents (protect the integrity of the land/sea/air)(and do NOT interfere in politics)
Edit: Brazil is a corrupt nation. Perhaps if the haves start caring for the have-nots, and the poverty/inequality is reduced, education is improved, then in 10-20-30 years Brazil will be VERY different to what it is now. These things take time. Moving to a good direction won't take you there tomorrow.
Please do not take HN threads in generic ideological directions. There's never anything new in these discussions, which makes them off topic here. They also quickly turn into flamewars, which we're trying to avoid.
Please do not take HN threads in generic ideological directions. There's never anything new in these discussions, which makes them off topic here. They also quickly turn into flamewars, which we're trying to avoid.
> 100 million died due to Communism/Socialism in the past century
Leninism and it's descendants (I won't quibble over the number, because it's not important since the ascription of blame is wrong as is the dichotomy it's framed as part of), which Socialist (and even Communist) opponents have been calling “State Capitalism” since before the first of those deaths occurred.
> But yeah, the bad guy is Capitalism here.
Leninism, et al., and Capitalism can both be bad. It's not a binary choice between those two options (as proven by the fact that the the developed world has largely abandoned the system originally described as Capitalism for the modern mixed economy, which while retaining some features, including some problematic ones, of Capitalism significantly mitigates some of it's acute problems; we've already largely chosen a third way, though plenty advocate a return to naked capitalism, there's no reason we couldn't instead choose a fourth.)
Again, no conspiracy. Conspiracies exist, but this is not it. Everyone involved is very open about what is going on here.
Ellison is open about supporting Trump. To say that Trump has been open about Tiktok is probably an understatement. Oracle has now won a high profile cloud contract they wouldn't have secured otherwise.
They have an obvious shared interest. Pay my back and I'll pat yours.
These are still conspiracies. Unless you can prove beyond doubt that the office of the President of the United States was misused to benefit Oracle because of the friendship between Trump and Ellison then yes your theory can be proved. That can be through money trail/paper trail/wiretapping. Anything that can establish without doubt that the two have a connection. Innocent until proven guilty. Or did we throw that axiom out the window? Trump was a businessman prior to becoming the US President. It is obvious that he has friends in all places. Else he would never have been able to do any sort of business in the first place.
Does just having support or being a friend with a billionaire amount to corruption? What if Google was the beneficiary of the deal and not Oracle? Or what if Apple was the beneficiary of the deal and not Oracle?
Apple has also benefited from Trump's interventions. "Tim Cook said during an interview with Fox Business that the Trump administration enabled Apple to enter the Indian retail market." [1]
> They have an obvious shared interest. Pay my back and I'll pat yours.
Even if there was some "obvious" shared interest it helps the US in the end doesn't it? It is not like it is something against USA. So what is the problem here?
Conspiracy theory differs from conspiracy "theory" in what clues you have, without needing concrete, legal evidence that could result in a court decision. In the sense you say it, NSA mega-surveillance was just a "conspiracy theory" before Snowden blew the whistle. If one has IQ over 20, it was obviously not a "theory", despite the fact no court-ready evidence was available. So instead of a blanket statement that every case where no concrete legal evidence exists is equally false, each conspiracy case shall be treated separately. A person with personal ties with Trump getting a direct deal from a Trump driven decision has more basis of corruption and personal relations involvement than Tim saying the government policy eased their entrance to India.
By revealing incriminating evidence. Until then yes it was a conspiracy theory. Snowden did not just "say" that there was mega-surveillance. He actually revealed intricate details of how surveillance is carried out. Even though I disagree with how he revealed secret information, I still believe him because he produced evidence. He literally was in the know how of what happened and why it happened.
> So instead of a blanket statement that every case where no concrete legal evidence exists is equally false, each conspiracy case shall be treated separately.
I am not saying it is false. A conspiracy doesn't amount to falsity. The definition itself states: "Conspiracy theory, an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of a small, powerful group". That is it. It doesn't talk about the nature of the event/result of actions. I don't know why you think I am saying that it never happened. I am saying that these are allegations which haven't been proved yet.
> A person with personal ties with Trump getting a direct deal from a Trump driven decision has more basis of corruption and personal relations involvement than Tim saying the government policy eased their entrance to India.
You can say that about any US President then. Every single US President was well connected in some way or the other. How do you think Obama got his Nobel Peace Prize then? That too within 1 year into his office with literally nothing to back it. Was there some form of corruption between Obama and the Nobel Committee? There, I just created a conspiracy theory for you to ponder upon. Now what stops anyone from connecting anything and saying that there must be a reason for why something happened? Nothing! That is why you have Courts which can decide, with a high degree of certainty, that the allegations are true or false.
