• 2 Posts
  • 1.28K Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 5th, 2023

help-circle




  • "Thank you for responding. It’s not nearly as polarizing as you suggest once you look at the numbers.

    The American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA) was advanced by the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 20, 2022, with a 16-6 bipartisan vote.

    Senators who voted in favor (Yes):

    Democrats:

    Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL)

    Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

    Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

    Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)

    Senator Christopher Coons (D-DE)

    Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)

    Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI)

    Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ)

    Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA)

    Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA)

    Republicans:

    Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA)

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

    Senator John Cornyn (R-TX)

    Senator John Kennedy (R-LA)

    Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC)

    Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)

    Senators who voted against (No):

    Republicans:

    Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX)

    Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE)

    Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO)

    Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR)

    Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)

    Senator John Kennedy (R-LA)

    Now tell us again how the “bipartisan” bill where EVERY NO VOTE IS REPUBLICAN is evidence that the Democrats are not committed to antitrust reform?

    Schumer didn’t oppose the bill. You know very well that he made a strategic decision to not bring the bill to a vote because the Silicon Valley tech bros opposed the bill and THANKS TO CITIZENS UNITED, their money is SPEECH.

    The people who brought you that decision were ALL REPUBLICAN appointees. Every single one.

    In a 50/50 divided Senate (with two independents in the D column but Sinema and Manchin working against the caucus), there was a POLITICAL REALITY to contend with. Sadly, the money screws up everyone.

    You are 100% wrong about this alleged reversal of “little guy” roles, and you seem to be deliberately obtuse about the facts."

    This is a quote directly from the reddit thread where he made his secondary statement after the first one on shitter went viral. Context is important and he still has yet to actually answer to this.











  • Yeah. I don’t disagree with that. But I think it’s rather more about (from what I can see in the original comment) not the techcrunch media coverage, but the idea that techcrunch runs lots of articles about meta and Facebook, not all of them aimed at the problems with the platform and there is no cohesion (in each of these posts), explaining each time they have before given info on leaving Facebook and the important events that lead them to do so.

    The article doesn’t really start off with a “haven’t we been here before”, or anything acknowledging what came before. Perhaps that’s their complaint.