Depends on the industry and where your cutoff is for "right." I know conservatives making big money developing proprietary software for finance that you'll never see or hear about. It's the public-facing products that are largely driven by those who identify as more socially liberal (though the loud lest ones tend to be more towards the end of the horseshoe).

Weird bit of turnaround from [this](https://ruqqus.com/post/1tk4/what-is-stop-ruqqus-become-like/5yz2)

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:38f947ceadf06e6d3ffc2b37b807d7ef80b57f21&dn=Intel%20exconfidential%20Lake%20drop%201 I found this someplace else and can't guarantee its integrity. Use with caution.

> That wasn't in the TLDR that most people will skip to. You need to update it to reflect reality. I'm not the author, but I would encourage you to comment on the article and express your thoughts to the author there. > There is a long list of programs that are huge security threats and blatantly violate our rights, not just TikTok. Software has long been eroding our rights in the West, and the fact that everyone does it doesn't make it OK. 100% agree. I've seen how that sausage is made, and it's horrifying. I worry sometimes that I sound like a crazed conspiracy theorist when I describe all the things going on under the hood of the internet, the incredible amount of information entities are scraping from your online behavior, the sheer *volume* of information, etc. Android was maybe the smartest thing Google ever did. Every phone is a tracking device optimized for big data collection. I know of an app that allows a completely unrelated company to monitor their display stands in grocery stores based off of interactions with Bluetooth devices their users encounter. I only know about this because I know who set it up, and watched him pitch it to the C-suite. And then there's [this.](https://blog.beaconstac.com/2016/02/25-retailers-nailing-it-with-their-proximity-marketing-campaigns/)

>Disclaimer >TikTok offers plethora of features to their users thanks to its million of lines long code. As such, a single article can not cover a question as broad and vague as “does TikTok poses a threat to US national security?”. That’s why I’ll cover the matter over several articles all focused on specific subjects.

I asked the author: >Microsoft doesn't seem to have the same broad power in any particular markets that it is abusing. The closest thing is their control over Office, which is the basis for Slack's antitrust complaint in Europe. Slack seems to be arguing that because so many offices uses MS Office, bundling a messaging product for free (that competes with Slack's paid service) is an attempt to undercut them. There's probably either a dumping argument or general market power abuse argument. >I'd have to see more analysis to have a position on this though. It's true that Office is widespread, but I think Teams is only available for Office 365 licenses, which are a recurring subscription. I don't know how many Office uses are paying for standalone versions vs paying for a subscription. If most Office uses were paying through 365, and Office is as widespread as I think it is, there could be some problems, but it's less stark than the dominance of Google and others.

Fact checking is a risky business, but I can't think of an organization I trust more than Reuters for this.

Aw, thanks guys

I think it's that he largely doesn't fit into one of the two big American camps, and doesn't use his platform to push towards one "side" or the other. When you get to that size as an entrepreneur, especially one that sees the government as a customer, it pays to play both sides like any other powerful corporate lobbying group. He seems to be a technocrat, but technocrats are too boring to make noise in most political climates.

The article as a whole seems to be pretty pro-regulation of speech. There's a good bit to read between the lines there with the comments on Musk's historical aversion to Facebook and his meetings with Zuck about AI. I dislike Facebook because the website encourages the formation of hate-circlejerks in echo chambers safe from anything resembling critical thinking. It makes it easier to market to them and increases user retention, because echo chambers feel good, but it also encourages the kind of vitriolic tribalism that makes civil society and open exchange of ideas damn near impossible. I suspect Musk sees Facebook as the ad revenue equivalent of the Paperclip Maximizer, and that scares the shit out of him.