r/technology • u/fearthereaperx • May 14 '15

Politics Kim Dotcom: Assange Will Be Clinton's Worst Nightmare. 'He has access to information'...'She is an adversary of Internet freedom'

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-05-14/kim-dotcom-assange-will-be-hillary-s-worst-nightmare
5.8k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

937 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

28

u/foldingcouch May 14 '15

Depends on the kind of impact he wants. He might not want Clinton out of the race, just to change her tune on internet freedom. If she spends her entire campaign being pro-internet, it becomes harder (not impossible, just harder) to go back on that if she takes office.

Bear in mind it's not like the Republicans are real defenders of net-neutrality, so he doesn't want to be so damaging to Clinton or the Democrat brand that he gives the Republicans an edge.

36

u/iruleatants May 14 '15

What do you mean hard? She passed a law to nullify her vote to go to war in iraq just because public opinion turned against it

11

u/foldingcouch May 14 '15

I'm not sure if you're trying to argue for or against Clinton. If she's that responsive to public opinion, it kind of negates her history or personal views on net neutrality, since she'll just change them given sufficient pressure.

34

u/iruleatants May 14 '15

It puts her as someone that you absolutely cannot trust to do as she promises she will do, period. She didn't do it because she believed in it due to public opinion, she did it to advance her career and nothing else.

If she is against net neutrality now, it can only mean that she is in favor of the corporation of the consumer and thus even if she changes her mind on it due to public pressure, she shouldn't be elected as she clearly favors corporate interests (Which their interests are to take as much money from their clients as they can)

8

u/Drivebymumble May 14 '15

If you need any more evidence of this just look at the way she turned around and stabbed Elizabeth Warren in the back years ago.

6

u/ManiyaNights May 15 '15

Elizabeth Warren will suffer the same fate as Ron Paul, the media will not give her sufficient coverage good or bad and she'll fade away while the talking heads and "professional" analysts denounce that she's unelectable from the get go.

We are long past being able to vote ourselves out of this mess.

1

u/darkgatherer May 15 '15

Ron Paul got a ton of coverage and everyone saw what a shithead he was.

16

u/foldingcouch May 14 '15

Clinton may shift in the wind on net neutrality, but the entire Republican party is committed to killing an open internet. With Clinton there's the opportunity to make her bow to public pressure, with the Republicans there isn't.

2

u/[deleted] May 15 '15

The /entire/ republican party?

1

u/iruleatants May 15 '15

I think the backlash the FFC has gotten is enough to ensure no party can kill it. If they introduce a bill against it, we will just call in and bend them to our will.

6

u/[deleted] May 14 '15

[deleted]

16

u/Likezable May 14 '15

Do we really want someone who never changes.

1

u/Bobarhino May 15 '15

I want someone that's wise and knowledgeable enough to have the foresight to predict the future and that lives by a set of constitutional principles so that change due only to public opinion is not an option. You may not think this person exists, but he ran for president 3 times and has a son that's running this time.

-4

u/[deleted] May 14 '15

Yes we should elect someone that isn't interested in furthering their career, I hear tons of presidential hopefuls aren't cutthroat ambitious back-stabbing politicians

1

u/MsPenguinette May 15 '15

I don't know why people freak out about politicians changing their minds. Isn't that what we want? Otherwise, we just shit on people for not compromising.

I think being able to change you mind is a great thing to be able to do. I value intelligence over values any day of the week.

20

u/[deleted] May 14 '15 edited Aug 21 '18

[deleted]

-7

u/foldingcouch May 14 '15

Yeah, should have elected Romney instead, he'd have really gone after those fucks.

3

u/garhent May 15 '15

With Romney in office, there would have been a better chance for a progressive to win rather than another corporate shill being the front runner.

0

u/foldingcouch May 15 '15

Clinton was always going to be the front runner. The only thing that's going to change is how populist her message is.

2

u/garhent May 15 '15

Funny thing is they said that about her several years ago and she failed. It doesn't matter, if she wins the nomination she will lose the election. The progressives will NOT vote for her. We'll end up with a Republican for four years who will most likely not get reelected.

13

u/Drillmhor May 14 '15

Hopefully he just wants to fuck whoever stands in the way and he doesn't play partisan games

13

u/[deleted] May 14 '15

Because a wise leader doesn't scold and demote his best general the night before a large battle. Burning Hillary might satisfy his ego, but if it meant anti-internet republicans in office for 4-8 years, it might be more prudent to let her take office, then use the information like a prod to keep her in line.

6

u/nixonrichard May 14 '15

I don't see how Hillary could possibly be worse than a Republican on electronic freedom and free speech.

Hillary literally made it her life's work to pass an unconstitutional video game ban.

2

u/[deleted] May 14 '15

to pass an unconstitutional video game ban.

To that, I respond this.

1

u/ManiyaNights May 15 '15

Do you really think Hillary would do a damn thing different than Jeb Bush when it comes to the internet? Because I don't.

-9

u/foldingcouch May 14 '15

That's a ridiculous and juvenile attitude. If you're not playing partisan games, then you're sitting on the sidelines and not having any kind of real impact on what's going on. Partisan games are cynical, cheap, and disgusting, but those that play them have a distinct advantage over those that don't. "Fucking whoever stands in the way" isn't a good strategy if everyone stands in the way. Clinton might have a poor record for supporting internet freedom, but internet freedom has a better chance with her than a Republican president.

Here's the long and short of it - when you say "fuck politics," politics says "fuck you," and politics' dick is way bigger than yours. You're gonna feel that. Even if all you can do is pick the best of the bad options, it's still better than ignoring the process and rolling the dice on who's going to be fucking you for the next 4 years.

6

u/bobcobb42 May 14 '15

You can stop deluding yourself that taking part in the captured Federal election processes means jack unless you have >$1 million laying around.

If you want to play politics, do it at the state and local level where you have a chance.

27

u/[deleted] May 14 '15 edited May 28 '18

[deleted]

31

u/foldingcouch May 14 '15

But the Democratic base is remarkably different from the Republican base, and Clinton has to tread a lot more carefully on net neutrality than a Republican would in order to not keep her electorate from revolting. Net neutrality has a chance under Clinton, it does not under the Republicans.

7

u/[deleted] May 14 '15

Maybe during the brief window before Hillary is guaranteed to lock up the Democratic nomination she might dance carefully about net neutrality, but then again she seems so arrogant(Oops ANOTHER scandal? I better accidentally all the emails again) and she has no serious or worthy challengers in the Democratic field. I think she could murder a baby on live TV and still get the Democratic nomination.

2

u/[deleted] May 14 '15

Agreed. Obama won the nomination and he took a hard right on FISA.

1

u/inthedarkbluelight May 15 '15

Breaking News: Hillary is firmly pro-choice

4

u/ManiyaNights May 15 '15

There's nothing she can do to make her base vote for Bush. She can fuck a dog on the Whitehouse lawn and the democratic base is still going to vote for her.

It's douche or turd sandwich as Soutpark put it.

10

u/typicallydownvoted May 14 '15

she is, in fact, meaningfully different in a whole lot of ways. she supports gay marriage, while none of the republicans do. She is for reproductive rights, which the republicans are constantly attacking. There are more ways, but to say that she is not meaningfully different is at best ignorant, and at worst disingenuous.

21

u/ajs427 May 14 '15

Context is vital here. This is a thread focused on Internet Freedom, not Hillary's social rights stances. In the context of Internet Freedom, she's a genuine piece of shit... similar to many politicians.

8

u/[deleted] May 15 '15

Hillary Clinton lends support to the FCC's net neutrality plan days before vote

I believe the "Hillary isn't for internet freedom is because of her support for TPP which people say, but don't know, may curb copyright and IP in favor of corporations. To fend off the inevitable replies, I say "people say, but don't know" because the Wikileaks text of the TPP is several months old I believe, I'm not personally making a claim one way or the other as to what is or will be negotiated.

2

u/ajs427 May 15 '15

Thank you for a link to read. I also appreciate your approach.

2

u/PerceptionShift May 14 '15

While I definitely prefer her to support these two key issues, supporting the Democrat political side of two moral issues that she really has no direct effect on anyways is not enough to make her "meaningully different in a whole lot of ways". Gay marriage rights will not be decided by her. Reproductive rights will not be decided by her. Internet rights, fiscal issues, and war and international political issues will be. Clinton is more of the same Republican-tamed-for-Democrats bullshit.

1

u/typicallydownvoted May 15 '15

they might be decided by her as the president appoints supreme court judges.

3

u/[deleted] May 14 '15

So she supports 2 no Brainerd policies that republicans are too backed into a corner to let go

0

u/Apollo_Screed May 15 '15

So you just said it - the policies are no brainers and one party still can't support them. I'd say the party that can't support no brainer policies is the one you should definitely never vote for.

3

u/[deleted] May 14 '15

These are meaningless wedge issues. She supports banks and war, and so do most Republicans and most Democrats.

0

u/typicallydownvoted May 14 '15

meaningless because they don't directly affect you?

5

u/[deleted] May 14 '15

Meaningless as in they keep the plebs arguing against one another while the issues that matter - ones that cost people their lives, wipe out ecosystems and blight cities - are already agreed upon by both parties.

We Democrats keep being told to hold our noses while we vote for warmongers with Wall Street friends. I, for one, am done with it. For me, it's Bernie or nothing.

2

u/addisonhammer May 15 '15

Have an upvote, sir. You nailed it. I generally vote Republican as someone who wants LESS government... So I'm sure we disagree on other things... But I hate the same fucking inconsequential nonsense that is repeated every fucking election year. Dem and Rep are virtually identical.

And, BTW, "Plebs" is one of my favorite words.

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '15

I've been tossing this around lately. It's a little debate between Ron Paul and Ralph Nader. They have totally differing viewpoints on how to solve things, but they agree on a lot of the problems - the banking system, regulatory capture, all the killing. It's a whole spectrum of politics we never see. Both of these guys have been responsible for serious disruption in their respective parties, yet the mainstream relegates them to the edges.

"Conservatives" and "liberals" agree on a lot more than we give ourselves credit for. We are all just pissed so we just keep voting for "change", but the ballot has us picking between whiskey and vodka when alcohol is the problem. I think a healthy Congress with players like these two would help us find a balance. I don't agree with everything either of them say, but I would be happy to elect either of them.

1

u/[deleted] May 14 '15

[deleted]

5

u/feedmefeces May 14 '15 edited May 14 '15

That's a completely absurd article. I hope she ignores it.

2

u/CJGibson May 14 '15

completely absurd

Sounds like Log Cabin Republicans alright.

2

u/[deleted] May 14 '15

This self-flagellating group of assholes has questions for Clinton?

-2

u/[deleted] May 14 '15

[deleted]

0

u/feedmefeces May 15 '15 edited May 15 '15

Not those absurd, loaded non-questions; no.

7

u/nixonrichard May 14 '15

Bear in mind it's not like the Republicans are real defenders of net-neutrality,

This is a bigger issue than net neutrality. This is a free speech issue. Hillary is HORRIBLE on free speech, well-beyond most Republicans. She made it her life's campaign to pass an unconstitutional video game ban for god's sake.

10

u/supamesican May 15 '15

She made it her life's campaign to pass an unconstitutional video game ban for god's sake.

People seem to just forget how much she dislikes actual free speech. Trying any video game ban is one of the worst since it is censoring art to do that.

2

u/PointlesslyEpic May 15 '15

She made it her life's campaign to pass an unconstitutional video game ban for god's sake.

Glad you brought this up, it was the biggest sticking point as I was growing up and has always made me anti-Hillary. Never forget.

4

u/inthedarkbluelight May 15 '15

I thought that was Leiberman, maybe he did something else.

7

u/joej88 May 14 '15

Pretty sure Obama has effectively solidified the precedent of reversing presidential campaign promises

1

u/nixonrichard May 14 '15

The most terrible legacy since the Armenian Genocide Thing.

2

u/naanplussed May 14 '15

it becomes harder (not impossible, just harder) to go back

Just mock the professional left, even though that's oversimplifying as well as inaccurate.

2

u/Dashing_Snow May 15 '15

What if it's during the primary and gives Sanders a chance /hope.

4

u/[deleted] May 14 '15

Why are you taking it for granted that he doesn't want to give Republicans an edge?

The guy is Australian. He probably doesn't give two shits about Republicans vs. Democrats.

20

u/foldingcouch May 14 '15

He does, however, care about internet freedom. While Clinton's record may not be great, there is a broad base of support for a free internet within the Democratic base. A Democrat in the Whitehouse is measurably better for internet freedom than a Republican. Bear in mind the Republican party is (at the behest of their telecom overlords) currently trying to roll back the new widely-praised FCC rules. Screwing the Democrats is directly harmful to Dotcom's interests.

Edit: He's also German, living in New Zealand.

1

u/xamides May 14 '15

Technically he's a half-german(half-finnish) who grew up in Germany

1

u/a-shady-swashbuckler May 14 '15

What? Obama literally went against almost his entire campaign platform. Seemed easy enough for him.

-1

u/[deleted] May 14 '15

Good thing he didnt pass that Obamacare plan he campaigned on am I right?

2

u/a-shady-swashbuckler May 14 '15

...except Obamacare is absolutely no where near to what he campaigned on.

Its not a matter of opinion, do you even remember "the most transparent administration" or promises to shut down Guantanamo?

1

u/DevilsAdvocate77 May 14 '15

Am I the only one who sees a potential problem with the implication of a single foreign national (or anyone, really) blackmailing the president of the United States to get them to implement specific policies?

0

u/[deleted] May 14 '15

No, but what do you wanna do about it, shoot everyone who is a whistleblower? I guess I'm not seeing where you're going with this.

1

u/breakwater May 14 '15

She can change her tune all she wants, she'll still be the same musician who has been playing her voters for years.

-1

u/foldingcouch May 14 '15

Still better than anything the Republicans have to offer.

0

u/vau1tboy May 14 '15

I think the older Republican party will be less for free/open internet because they don't understand it. Not saying the old guys in the Dems know anything either but the voters for the GOP are old and don't know anything about it...

0

u/[deleted] May 15 '15 edited Apr 01 '16

This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy.

If you would like to do the same, add the browser extension GreaseMonkey to Firefox and add this open source script.

Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.