Of course, currying favor with the new administration.
This has always been the case, of course, but it feels much more out in the open now. Where does the slippery slope end? Go down this road too far and these tech companies will end up like their counterparts in China (Baidu, Tencent, Alibaba, etc.) who do the autocratic government's bidding in controlling the population (by controlling information) for fear of retribution to their bottom line.
I suspect individuals capable of being tech leaders are also capable of holding less partisan opinions.
I suspect most don’t really see themselves as a Democrat or a Republican, but individuals with their own principals, which makes it easier to see where there is alignment with each side.
> where does this slippery slope end? [...] who do the autocratic government's bidding in controlling the population (by controlling information) for fear of retribution to their bottom line.
The people have exercised power and voted for Trump. Corporations currying favor with the currently fashionable leader is what you should want, because the currently fashionable leader represents the interests of the people, and this is a check that the people have over corporations. You theoretically want to go all the way down this slippery slope for as long as the people control their government; the people are sovereign, and invest their power in an elected government; that in turn invest in corporations the freedoms that they need to maximize prosperity.
Or is something wrong with the institutions today that despite Trump winning both in terms electorally and the popular vote, this is somehow undemocratic? I would like for you to examine why a dynamic that is supposed to be democratic has led you to consider that it is aligned with autocracy (I think you mean authoritarian here); such an exercise will help with the quality of the discussion we are having.
Trump tried to overturn the results of an election. That should never happen in our democracy and he should never have been allowed to run for president. There's not even any point in debating policies. It's not about Republican vs Democrat, it's about democracy vs authoritarianism, which he tried to do 4 years ago and was only stopped by Pence and the Georgia Sec of State.
So yes, very undemocratic.
I did mean autocracy -- that's what China has become (once again) under Xi.
No matter what Trump tried to do, I think that winning the popular vote and election is the highest form of democratic legitimacy. Xi was not elected by the people, and the party's election of their head of party was not fair (there is coercion); that's why some people say that he is an autocrat. A government cannot be autocratic when its head-of-state is decided by an election that is quite representative. If the US were an autocratic government, the election would be meaningless, and Biden would be naming his successor. Which is not presently the case.
The best argument I can give for your statement is that the present US population democratically chooses as their head-of-state a person who would like the government to be more autocratic, or have authoritarian personalities, or are strongmen; between Chávez, Marcos, Duterte, Modi, and Bolsonaro, among others, you will be able to find instances where strongmen with great popular support are elected in sufficiently fair and free elections. I still consider they reflect the will of the people, even as some regard that the people suffer for that choice.
In which case, my original point still stands; I still think you want companies to want to cooperate with governmental leadership in a well-functioning democracy, and you have misidentified where dysfunction lies (if there is dysfunction) by thinking that for things to be arranged otherwise would be democratic.
> I still think you want companies to want to cooperate with governmental leadership in a well-functioning democracy
Without education, people will succumb to bias, propaganda and misinformation, often voting against their own interests. There's already a fundamental issue with capitalism favouring profit above anything else, leading to a lot of the current issues with (for example) privatization of health care. I don't think you can have a functional democracy without education. As a species we keep falling into a pattern of a wealth gap, followed by extremism, followed by wars, followed by poverty, while at every individual step we find reasons why it's perfectly fine.
you're really missing the point. Having an autocratic president weakens the foundations of democracy. If Trump is okay reversing a free and fair election, then he is okay with acting in ways that are completely undemocratic, whether those who voted for him (less than 50% of voters, by the way), agree or not. So yes, a government that is elected can absolutely become autocratic if its leader is able to undermine the pinnings of democracy and does not encounter sufficient opposition. (Hitler came to power as the result of elections too.)
You don't seem to have a problem with autocracy, but I do. I've lived in countries with those leaders - and Trump is cut from the same cloth. Enjoy it while it lasts.
No, you're missing the point. This discussion isn't about my comfort level with autocracy, it's about how, in a democracy, you want corporations to be aligned with the policies of the currently fashionable governmental leadership.
> You don't seem to have a problem with autocracy, but I do.
I hadn't expressed my own views in autocracy myself. I had argued how the democratic will of the people as expressed for elections can actually be for the (future) society they live in to be autocratic; I gave examples, and you just gave Hitler as an example. So I don't think you have argued against this point. You should revise your last paragraph to read:
(The voting US majority) doesn't seem to have a problem with autocracy, but I do. I've lived in countries with those leaders - and Trump is cut from the same cloth. Enjoy it while it lasts.
I had hoped that you would be able to express that you understand that the current system is somewhat democratic, and that the current will is for the democratic system to extinguish itself. With this distinction being understood, I would have liked to discuss what institutions it would take for a society to not only be democratic, but also sustain that democracy into the future.
I would have liked to explore more nuanced notions; for example,
- you talked about companies "doing the autocratic government's bidding in controlling the population (by controlling information)", but I wanted to discuss what it means
- to shape the information environment of a voting citizen, so that they have certain beliefs so strongly autocratic that even in a democratic process their democratic will is to have an autocratic government.
- to examine the reality of the information and mass communication environment already present that is quite necessary for nationhood, that convinces someone to vote for a person that they have never spoken to personally and pretty much never heard of directly with their eyes and ears, to protect and advocate for their personal interests and rights, over someone they know from experience they can trust with for that like a family member or close friend. It is clear to a 4 y.o. that their parents are the only person they can trust for that, but as we grow up and learn about society through our information diet, we learn that we should be trusting people we never meet for it.
That's an interesting point, but if you follow it just a little bit further you'll realize the problem. Corporations shouldn't live in existential fear of the executive administration because then they'll kowtow to every executive demand regardless of the legitimacy.
What happens if Trump decides that every media outlet that criticizes him should be muzzled? Your suggestion is that all these born again Republican companies should play along and turn themselves into FOX News. That is a feedback loop that would permanently enshrine the current officeholders.
> Corporations shouldn't live in existential fear of the executive administration because then they'll kowtow to every executive demand regardless of the legitimacy.
Every executive demand is legitimate in a democracy to the extent that they represent the people. To take an extreme example, media companies should want to pander to the government, except only in cases where the government fails to represent the electorate. On the other side of the coin, one thinks that it is the national interest to muzzle foreign-owned media companies that represent only foreign national interests, and you would think that it is democratic for such companies to live in fear of the executive administration. You have a contemporary example in TikTok, where regardless of the actual reasons the rhetoric used to justify current actions is couched in that.
That perspective assumes people are passive receptacles, who simply vote for whatever the TV tells them to vote for. But most US TV news and newspapers was supporting Harris, and in every election Trump was outspent by his opponents. People aren't slates on which other people scribble, they have agency and make their own decisions.
It's different this time because Musk helped get Trump elected and is there as First Buddy and they are scared he'll use that to advantage X and Xai etc to take over the market from them.
This has always been the case, of course, but it feels much more out in the open now. Where does the slippery slope end? Go down this road too far and these tech companies will end up like their counterparts in China (Baidu, Tencent, Alibaba, etc.) who do the autocratic government's bidding in controlling the population (by controlling information) for fear of retribution to their bottom line.