Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Oh, bother.
For context, here's the excerpt from the original NY Times interview a few days ago where he mentions videogames:
The reason why I was given presidential power when I was given an assignment is because I kept the disagreements I had with the president just that, as I said at the outset, with the president. One of the reasons he said he picked me was I’d never walked in the Oval Office and be intimidated by being in the Oval Office. I’d always tell him what I thought, but at the end of the day, he gets to make the decision.
There are places where he and I have disagreed. About 30 percent of the time, I was able to convince him to my side of the equation. Seventy percent of the time I wasn’t when we disagreed, when he laid something out. And you may recall, the criticism I got for meeting with the leaders in Silicon Valley, when I was trying to work out an agreement dealing with them protecting intellectual property for artists in the United States of America. And at one point, one of the little creeps sitting around that table, who was a multi- — close to a billionaire — who told me he was an artist because he was able to come up with games to teach you how to kill people, you know the ——
Yeah, video games. And I was lectured by one of the senior leaders there that by saying if I insisted on what Leahy’d put together and we were, I thought we were going to fully support, that they would blow up the network, figuratively speaking. Have everybody contact. They get out and go out and contact the switchboard, just blow it up.
And then one of these righteous people said to me that, you know, “We are the economic engine of America. We are the ones.” And fortunately I had done a little homework before I went and I said, you know, I find it fascinating. As I added up the seven outfits, everyone’s there but Microsoft. I said, you have fewer people on your payroll than all the losses that General Motors just faced in the last quarter, of employees. So don’t lecture me about how you’ve created all this employment.
The point is, there’s an arrogance about it, an overwhelming arrogance that we are, we are the ones. We can do what we want to do. I disagree. Every industrial revolution, every major technological breakthrough, every single one. We’re in the fourth one. The hardest speech I’ve ever had to make in my life, I was asked to speak at the World Economic Forum, to give an answer on, to speak to the fourth industrial revolution. Will there be a middle class? It’s not so clear there will be, and I’ve worked on it harder than any speech I’ve ever worked on.
The fact is, in every other revolution that we’ve had technologically, it’s taken somewhere between six years and a generation for a government to come in and level the playing field again. All of a sudden, remember the Luddites smashing the machinery in the Midlands? That was their answer when the culture was changing. Same thing with television. Same thing before that with radio. Same thing, but this is gigantic. And it’s a responsibility of government to make sure it is not abused. Not abused. And so this is one of those areas where I think it’s being abused. For example, the idea that he cooperates with knowing that Russia was engaged in dealing with using the internet, I mean using their platform, to try to undermine American elections. That’s close to criminal.
CW: I think he would argue that he didn’t know about that at the time and ——
He’d argue it and I don’t believe him for a second.
CW: You don’t believe that?
No, I don’t. Nor do you, in your heart. [LAUGHS]
This was following a question about Facebook, which Biden also doesn't like.
No, I’ve never been a fan of Facebook, as you probably know. I’ve never been a big Zuckerberg fan. I think he’s a real problem. I think ——
CW: Can you elaborate?
No, I can. He knows better. And you know, from my perspective, I’ve been in the view that not only should we be worrying about the concentration of power, we should be worried about the lack of privacy and them being exempt, which you’re not exempt. [The Times] can’t write something you know to be false and be exempt from being sued. But he can. The idea that it’s a tech company is that Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms.
Edited by M84 on Jan 19th 2020 at 9:30:49 PM
Disgusted, but not surprised
Untrustworthy
I mean, that sounds more like 'complaining about unregulated capitalism' than 'complaining about violence in video games' to me. Like there's the snide comment about 'games the teach people to kill', but that's side note, whereas the main thrust of what he's talking about is how the government needs to learn how to regulate new technologies to ensure they're not being used in abusive ways.
"Canada Day is over, and now begins the endless dark of the Canada Night."
Oh, bother.
I'm not surprised VG 247 focused more on that videogame remark. It is a videogame blog after all.
Edited by M84 on Jan 19th 2020 at 9:38:08 PM
Disgusted, but not surprised
Yeah, in context it very much sounds like he's talking about tech monopolies, not banning violent video games.
Reminds me of that time when media outlets presented Obama's comments on progressives needing to watch themselves because of the public not being accommodating to their ideas as a condemnation of the progressives for being too full of themselves and trying to paint Obama as a bitter old centrist, when in context (he was praising Warren supporters, who are known to favor a more radical economic agenda) the original NYT quote appeared to be a lamentation, and a condemnation of the public for being so close-minded.
Edited by AlleyOop on Jan 19th 2020 at 10:21:47 AM
Video Games are a protected artform in the US, anyway.
Yeah, Biden said nothing wrong this time.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
State of Mind
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
That has more to do with what Biden was talking about than anything really. Video games come up because during a meeting with the big wigs in Silicon Valley about protecting intellectual property of artists one of them says that he's an artist because he - and by "he" he means his company - makes video games, and so the government shouldn't regulate Big Tech "artists." And if they did then Silicon Valley would blow their lid and start lobbying against it like crazy.
"The point is, there's an arrogance about it, an overwhelming arrogance that we [Big Tech] are, we are the ones. We can do what we want to do. I disagree."
Biden goes on to say that with every big technological revolution the government always lags behind in introducing regulations to prevent abuse. And they have to do it sooner rather than later because Zuckerberg and Co. clearly aren't interested in self regulating or protecting democratic institutions.
Edited by Parable on Jan 19th 2020 at 6:06:40 AM
"What a century this week has been." - Seung Min Kim
While I am behind that 100%, erm, not to be a cheerleader but didn't Warren already proposed a plan to put something like that into action last year?
She/her
Also, the law Biden cited would not do that, and getting rid of it would just make things MUCH WORSE.
Oh, bother.
The point is that there's a lot more to this than "old guy ranting about videogames" that the VG 247 thing implied.
This is why you don't get news about US politics from a videogame blog.
Disgusted, but not surprised
Shin Megami Tensei IV
This misreading just makes me feel.bad for Biden tbh
Watch me destroying my country
Lost in Space
Well, I take my initial rant back: if Biden is targeting anti-consumer and monopolistic practices by video game companies, then yes, he's absolutely on the right track.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I find this rather confusing, given that Silicon Valley and the video game industry hardly intersect. Who exactly was that "little creep" who made that boast?
Also, if Manipulative Editing is a bad thing, perhaps we shouldn't fall for it just because targets someone that's not well liked, whether it's Biden or even Trump.
Side note: "Biden" is not recognized by Google Keyboard in its suggested vocabulary, while Obama and Trump are. Seems ironic in this case…
Pretentious Git
I mean, Obama was president for 8 years, and "trump" is a word on its own independent of Donald.
What matters in this life is much more than winning for ourselves. What really matters is helping others win, too. - F. Rogers.
State of Mind
There were seven companies Biden was talking to, but the only thing we can say for sure about the creep was that it wasn't a Microsoft rep. Biden mentions they were the only ones who were supposed to be there that weren't for some reason.
I don't think Microsoft is based in Silicon Valley, so he might be using the location interchangeably with Big Tech. Which isn't that uncommon.
"What a century this week has been." - Seung Min Kim
Oh, bother.
Heck, one of the interviewers does the same thing, outright saying they are using SV as a stand-in for the tech industry.
Disgusted, but not surprised
She/her
The New York Times just endorsed Warren and Klobuchar.
Well this is just embarrassing and gutless.
Edited by wisewillow on Jan 19th 2020 at 8:24:53 AM
Because they're endorsing two candidates instead of just one?
Seriously? That's just sad. Grow a spine and pick one.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Oh, bother.
"May the best woman win."
That's how they ended their piece on the decision.
...<headdesk>
Not joking, that's actually the last line of the op-ed.
NY Times: THE DEMOCRATS’ BEST CHOICES FOR PRESIDENT
Slate's take on this: New York Times Editorial Board: For President, Warren—and, Uhhhh, Also Klobuchar
Edited by M84 on Jan 20th 2020 at 12:33:30 AM
Disgusted, but not surprised
Pretentious Git
I don't think Microsoft is based in Silicon Valley
They're in Redmond, Washington. Near Seattle.
What matters in this life is much more than winning for ourselves. What really matters is helping others win, too. - F. Rogers.
She/her
Also, love how they glide by the abusive boss with the worst turnover in the Senate issue re: Klobuchar. Not like the exec branch is a huge amount of responsibility dependent on staffing and personnel.
They didn’t even address that abusing people is bad!
Reports of how Senator Klobuchar treats her staff give us pause. They raise serious questions about her ability to attract and hire talented people. Surrounding the president with a team of seasoned, reasoned leaders is critical to the success of an administration, not doing so is often the downfall of presidencies. Ms. Klobuchar has acknowledged she’s a tough boss and pledged to do better. (To be fair, Bill Clinton and Mr. Trump — not to mention former Vice President Biden — also have reputations for sometimes berating their staffs, and it is rarely mentioned as a political liability.)
So: the only problem with being abusive is it’s harder to hire people, but since we’ve let men get away with being abusive we should give her a pass?!?!?
Edited by wisewillow on Jan 19th 2020 at 8:52:24 AM
Apparently they described warren as condescending. Uh.
She/her
They basically said she seems to smart and men might not like it.
:|
Oh, good! It's about time Washington cracked down on their excesses. The video game industry has, for years, been a case study in unregulated capitalism. If you want to know what the world according to Ayn Rand would truly look like, just look at AAA game development, where there are no rules, profit is the only God, and everything is permitted.
I'm not fond of Biden, but given his likelihood for our candidacy, it's nice to hear he's interested in looking into this. Which part is he—
OH GODDAMMIT BIDEN, THIS IS NOT HELPING.
My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.