Make Mark Zuckerberg Testify
theintercept.com
theintercept.com
Sensationalist BS
I am not a lawyer. But as a layperson, I find your objection to be a non-sequitur; I assume that most people who testify before Congress are not suspected of wrong-doing.
Nobody is accusing Zuckerburg of a crime, but his company has hardly been transparent or forthcoming about this either. The public deserves an explanation, not only from him, but the folks at Twitter and Reddit as well.
There's no legal obligation on FB to shed light on anything that's completely legal. I'm assuming you're citing ethics. If FB is capable of making YOU the product, you think they care about how their advertising dollars come? As long as they're legal
Russia interfering with US elections is a problem for the US but it's a given fact since the dawn of diplomacy and geopolitics.
21 years ago this was on the cover of Time: http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html
Now everyone is mad because Trump doesn't seem to fit the general agenda of the centrist and left leaning media.
I don't like Trump either but bitching about Russia is hypercritical and also pointless.
If the climate wasn't right Russia wouldn't been able to get Trump 1000 extra votes. Maybe we should look to how we got to a place where polarizing populist candidates without even the slightest shred of credibility are electable in the first place.
Whether it is accurate now is another topic, though.
Hillary won millions more votes than Trump.
Trump is at historic disapproval levels for a president at his time in office.
But like Obama actively campaigning for politicians in other countries [0] or the US getting involved in god knows how many other elections is like totally... meh.
[0] http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-...
The source you quoted shows nothing about 'Obama actively campaigning for politicians in other countries'. In fact it exonerates him of your charges.
The most recent US interference in a foreign election (quoted in your source) was in 2000, when Dubya was President. You could arguable attribute that to Bill Clinton, since the groundwork would have to have been laid earlier than 2000.
> In 2000, the U.S. spent millions of dollars in aid for political parties, campaign costs and independent media. Funding and broadcast equipment provided to the media arms of the opposition were a decisive factor in electing opposition candidate Vojislav Kostunica as Yugoslav president, according to Levin. “If it wouldn’t have been for overt intervention … Milosevic would have been very likely to have won another term,” he said.
Obama would come to power a full 2 terms later.
https://spectator.org/obamas-meddling-in-foreign-elections-s...
Some dude's diary is front page news there: https://spectator.org/as-im-being-audited/
(Sorry to essentially say the same thing multiple times over, but hypocrisy is so engrained in our dna you need to forcefully call attention to it sometimes.)
That's really the danger of whataboutism, it basically asserts that any two actions must be considered morally equivalent, regardless of the intended aim. That is simply not the case.
The US has a history of campaigning (put politely) or interfering (more accurately) in foreign elections[1]. It's not really a partisan issue.
I suspect having other countries interfere in the US election, the bastion of democracy in the western world, has happened before. Just never so visibly.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_electoral_intervention
No details as to the content of the ads have been revealed. One would think that if they were pro-Trump they would have mentioned that in the release.