European Influence and Economic Implications
Several commenters discuss the potential shift in economic power and influence, particularly within the technology and communications sectors, as a result of recent actions (likely referring to the US targeting of the International Criminal Court). The perceived outcome is a strengthening of European businesses and a weakening of American companies.
- "chillingeffect: Great way to build up European comms business and take revenue from American companies."
- "decide1000: This is insane. They aimed his corporate account. Europeans move away from the US even faster now. This guy is literally breaking decades old relationships."
- "NewJazz: How's that making money thing going to go when Europe boycotts American tech for several decades?"
However, others dispute the idea that Europe doesn't rely on US tech or that the US doesn't rely on European tech.
- "litigator: Europe already own the US comms network. Nokia and Erricsson are the only real players there."
- "otterley: Qualcomm and Cisco are both American companies that play an enormous role in our telephony and network ecosystem."
Parallels to Historical Authoritarianism and Corruption
A significant theme involves drawing parallels between current events and the rise of authoritarian regimes, specifically Nazi Germany. This comparison focuses on the alignment of corporations with the state, potential corruption, and the pursuit of power and influence. Commenters express concerns about corporations and individuals getting involved with governmental institutions for personal gain rather than patriotism.
- "a_bonobo: You have a bunch of tech execs getting sworn in as lieutenant colonels for the Army Reserve, SF aligns itself with the White House just like Germany's big industry aligned itself with the NSDAP. It doesn't particularly matter whether an order is legal or not, it only matters if the ones in power want it."
- "BLKNSLVR: The power that comes with military contract-type money, connections, and influence. That's the kind of situation that gives CEOs lifelong reputations (that they think it's in a good way)."
- "vkou: Fascism is the last step in the merger between the state and corporate power, the state is currently trying its best to take the country there, and the sycophants who are ready to assist it are getting in line."
- "Jtsummers: It gives them a chance for grift. They're going into an 'innovation' unit whose job is to get the Army (or DOD more broadly, but they're in the Army now) to select particular technologies moving forward. Naturally, they'll recommend whatever their employer produces, and recommend to their employer that they expand into other areas so they can get the Army to buy that as well later on."
- "pjc50: Like the days of the British Army selling commissions, it's for corruption opportunities and cosplay."
- "morkalork: It was a very mafia-like arrangement. Loyalty meant being rewarded with lucrative opportunities but it also meant you owed them and sooner or later they'd come back asking for one favour or another."
- "pavlov: Nazis were very good at making both industrialists and military feel rich. The German stock market went up like a rocket between 1933 and 1941."
Corporate Behavior and Profit-Driven Decisions
Several comments focus on the nature of corporate behavior, arguing that corporations primarily act in their own financial interests and cannot be expected to act morally or challenge government actions without a clear monetary incentive or benefit.
- "phendrenad2: People really need to resist the urge to anthropomorphize corporations. Corporate behavior is well-established science at this point. They almost always do what is in their own financial interests. 'Feckless' means 'lacking initiative or strength of character'. Corporations have one character: Making money. Fighting the government over a few user accounts has no short-term or long-term monetary value. It doesn't even win you a PR victory because it's unclear how many people support or don't support this."
Legality and Legal Justification
Some debate the legality of actions by the US government and the legal options available to corporations like Microsoft. The general conclusion is that challenging executive orders related to national security is difficult.
- "averysmallbird: Not quite as clear cut. The EO triggers a national emergency under IEEPA, which is the basis of sanctions — so there is a well established legal underpinning. Unclear whether Microsoft has standing to challenge the designation of the ICC, and the courts give a lot of deference to the President on foreign affairs/national security. Microsoft is more “stuck” than “feckless” I think."
Political Polarization and the US Electorate
The discussion touches on the political climate in the US, including the deep polarization and the level of support for certain political figures. There is some back and forth on whether Trump won the majority in one election.
- "jeroenhd: Trump won the majority vote in an election that brought out a huge amount of voters compared to previous elections, and Republicans won every other government body. He's not unpopular and many people do support him, unfortunately."
- "NewJazz: Donald Trump has never won a majority vote in any public election. 49.9% is not a majority."
- "CoastalCoder: I think what's missing from the 40% number is that it says nothing about how passionately the other 60% feels. I'm not concerned about the fact that the election was close. I'm concerned that, post election, the country is so deeply polarized. For the first time in my life, I fear there's a small but real chance that we're headed for civil war."
- "LadyCailin: 70% of voting eligible Americans didn’t do the bare minimum to prevent Trump. 30% voted for him directly, and 40% couldn’t be bothered to vote at all. I’m even willing to excuse third party voters. But the Trump voters and non-voters don’t get a pass, not at all. It’s absolutely the majority of Americans."