Why do you say FAANG has been an intelligence front since the beginning?
As for the rest, it is just a matter of checking funding from inqtel and associated groups
The UK has information warfare agents on Twitter as well [2]
None of this is a disputed topic, back on the 70s with operation mockingbird US intelligence agencies bragged that they had an agent/asset on every important editorial board on the country [3] which all goes back to the church committee
[1] https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-goo...
[2] www.businessinsider.com/twitter-chief-also-works-for-the-british-armys-information-unit-2019-10
[3] https://schoolhistory.co.uk/notes/operation-mockingbird/
Now take a look at how many ex-intelligence run tech companies (may i remind you that former NSA head is on Amazon board?) and how many tech companies happily collaborate with intelligence services (Microsoft, Amazon, Palantir).
No. One party being a front for another party suggests that the two are indistinguishable actors on everything but the surface level, or more accurately that any action taken by the first party might be better viewed as being "really" taken by the second party, that any information given to the first party is also being given to the second party, etc. It does not suggest that fronting for the second party is the only thing the first party does, or that the first party was created to serve the purposes of the second party.
Taking an example out of the dictionary, it would be unusual to claim that a massage parlor serving as a front for prostitution is obviously, by its nature as a "front", unwilling to provide massages.
> It does not suggest that fronting for the second party is the only thing the first party does
to
> Netflix’s chaos monkey program is ackthuallee an intelligence scam to attack your distributed systems from within?
You're trying to interpret me as saying literally the opposite of the plain text of my comment. Work on your reading comprehension.
But yes, when Google releases its 13th chat app, there are good reasons to view that as being a CIA chat app with Google branding.
your comment was basically contradictory. As is this new one - google meet and google duo is a “CIA chat app”? Why?
What does that mean? Is someone previously on the Google Duo team a CIA officer? Is the leader of the team an asset? What design decisions are CIA adjacent? Where is this happening
> What does that mean?
It means that the app may be used to advance CIA goals. It means that the CIA has control of the app along any dimension you're worried about. This is the nature of obfuscated relationships. If you're worried about something, and it's likely to be true, you need to assume that it is true. In this case, the assumption is justified. If you're not worried about something, you don't need to make the assumption that it's true. Since it doesn't matter, you can afford not to have a position on it.
> May be used to advance CIA goals
What does this mean? Can CIA add a voice and video chat feature if the deputy director of it wants it? Can the CIA freely access internal communications? How? Who does this? Does Larry know? How do you know?
> cia has control over the app along any dimension
This is an excessively strong claim. Can the CIA delete the app and end the project if they feel like it today? Can they see what I’m typing before I post it? Again, why? Who knows about this? How do they do it?
Oh, you were trying to make some sort of sinister innuendo based upon your complete lack of understanding of the telecom industry in the original dot-com era and the existing long-haul infrastructure at the time? Ok.
Yeah, that’s what I said. You could have just upvoted the comment ;)