How about their own web page?

> We identify, adapt, and deliver innovative technology solutions to support the missions of the Central Intelligence Agency and broader U.S. Intelligence Community.

https://www.iqt.org/

The question isn't whether In-Q-Tel supports the CIA. It's whether Facebook was funded by In-Q-Tel, and even the article that Wikipedia uses as a citation doesn't seem too sure how strong of a connection there is:

> The second round of funding into Facebook ($US12.7 million) came from venture capital firm Accel Partners. Its manager James Breyer was formerly chairman of the National Venture Capital Association, and served on the board with Gilman Louie, CEO of In-Q-Tel, a venture capital firm established by the Central Intelligence Agency in 1999. One of the company's key areas of expertise are in "data mining technologies".

Aah, yes, that's my mistake in reading. The connection does seem tenuous.

I think the user was questioning the link between In-Q-Tel and Facebook (rather than In-Q-Tel and the CIA).

I checked and don't see any reference to Facebook on their portfolio page. Is there a mention on this site that I missed?

https://www.iqt.org/portfolio/

Article starts with "I despise Facebook." Aside from that possible bias, the best it asserts is that a partner at one of Facebook's VC investors is on the board of In-Q-Tel.

Yes, exactly. The Guardian article talks about Howard Cox; from In-Q-Tel (https://www.iqt.org/about-iqt/):

> Howard Cox is an Advisory Partner of Greylock, a national venture capital firm. Greylock with committed capital of over $2 billion under management has been an active investor in enterprise software, consumer internet and healthcare.

This is the closest connection I know between In-Q-Tel and Facebook, that's why I posted that link. (note that OP said "indirectly")

> note that OP said "indirectly"

The indirectly comment is referring to the CIA itself. Funding by IQT would thus be indirect versus funding by the CIA. The problem is there's no credible evidence of either, just fairly weak circumstantial stuff at best.

You mean the ingrained, often illogical set of biases everyone has as a matter of living?

Nah. Objective, verifiable info, please.

Common sense would indicate that it would be highly improbable for the military-industrial complex of USA to hand over something like the internet to the plebes without first thinking it through very carefully.

I would not be surprised one bit if SRI had not gamed this panopticon to the n-th degree in the 70s before Al Gore "invented" it for us.

[p.s. I can not reply to a follow-up so for the record, ARPANET was not an 'academic' exercise.]

If anything, corporations co-opted the internet from (government funded) academia. Then the corporations handed the internet over to us plebes.

Or that's what they want you to believe. Take your pick.

(for future reference, you can reply to followups by following the link directly to the comment - click on the post time like "2 hours ago")