I apologize for the broad generalisation (in my defence, the use of demonyms in such a context doesn’t always suggets complete generalisation). That was uncalled for.
I’ve lived for several years and travelled a lot around the US (both while living there and during subsequent visits). The impression I got is that corruption is not purely a far right thing and a far larger proportion of say the centre-right voting public enable it than would think. They might not be as openly committed to crime and corruption as say the far right, but much for the centre-right voting is simply too well off to risk rocking the boat and pursuing true anti-crime measures.
Let me give you an example of the latter. Meta has been found to knowling enable and support fraud to the tune of $16 B (10% plus of revenues) in 2024 alone. They even had a playbook to enable this scheme, so there likely entent to engage in crime.
This is a more pedestrian example, there also the enablement of Rohingya genocide (I don’t support capital punishment, but I would be willing to consider exceptions for egregious crimes against humanity, but let’s go with a more clear cut case.
Am I being unreasonable in stating that the vast majority of the centre-right voting public may vaguely believe Meta’s action to be criminal, but they fundamentally oppose any actions that might address such criminal activities. Things like immediate internment of all Meta executives and senior operational staff involved in this scheme, raids on their properties to uncover evidence, asset seizures for any entities involved in crime (so Zuckerburg would lose ownership stake in Meta if his engagement was proven during criminal proceedings)
The facts are pretty clear in this case, Meta didn’t even deny it, they decided to try PR their way out of it, hoping the issue would be forgotten.
There may be structural reasons for not pursuing such crimes, but that’s a weak excuse. Every country has problems (some far more challenging than American structural issues),
I stand by what I said, tech platforms (especially B2C, but not only) run by entities either based in the US or being subject to American influence cannot be trusted.
I will happily change my stance; it brings me no joy to see any country become a bastion of negative forces such as oligarchy and global promotion of crime and corruption. But there are limits to open mindedness and a desire to emphasis the positive elements of a given culture/nation.
At some point, there has to be real world changes and impact. I do not believe a hypothetical win by the centre-right in both legislative and executive office will change anything (FWIW, I actually lived in the US under Obama). I will also note that the issues with Valve were implementing during Obama’s terms.
I apologize for the broad generalisation (in my defence, the use of demonyms in such a context doesn’t always suggets complete generalisation). That was uncalled for.
I’ve lived for several years and travelled a lot around the US (both while living there and during subsequent visits). The impression I got is that corruption is not purely a far right thing and a far larger proportion of say the centre-right voting public enable it than would think. They might not be as openly committed to crime and corruption as say the far right, but much for the centre-right voting is simply too well off to risk rocking the boat and pursuing true anti-crime measures.
Let me give you an example of the latter. Meta has been found to knowling enable and support fraud to the tune of $16 B (10% plus of revenues) in 2024 alone. They even had a playbook to enable this scheme, so there likely entent to engage in crime.
This is a more pedestrian example, there also the enablement of Rohingya genocide (I don’t support capital punishment, but I would be willing to consider exceptions for egregious crimes against humanity, but let’s go with a more clear cut case.
Am I being unreasonable in stating that the vast majority of the centre-right voting public may vaguely believe Meta’s action to be criminal, but they fundamentally oppose any actions that might address such criminal activities. Things like immediate internment of all Meta executives and senior operational staff involved in this scheme, raids on their properties to uncover evidence, asset seizures for any entities involved in crime (so Zuckerburg would lose ownership stake in Meta if his engagement was proven during criminal proceedings)
The facts are pretty clear in this case, Meta didn’t even deny it, they decided to try PR their way out of it, hoping the issue would be forgotten.
There may be structural reasons for not pursuing such crimes, but that’s a weak excuse. Every country has problems (some far more challenging than American structural issues),
I stand by what I said, tech platforms (especially B2C, but not only) run by entities either based in the US or being subject to American influence cannot be trusted.
I will happily change my stance; it brings me no joy to see any country become a bastion of negative forces such as oligarchy and global promotion of crime and corruption. But there are limits to open mindedness and a desire to emphasis the positive elements of a given culture/nation.
At some point, there has to be real world changes and impact. I do not believe a hypothetical win by the centre-right in both legislative and executive office will change anything (FWIW, I actually lived in the US under Obama). I will also note that the issues with Valve were implementing during Obama’s terms.