Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Democrats Google Communications Government Network Networking The Internet United States News Politics Technology

Julian Assange: Google is 'Directly Engaged' In Hillary Clinton's Campaign (infowars.com) 477

An anonymous reader writes from a report via Infowars: Speaking to the "New Era of Journalism: Farewell to Mainstream" symposium, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange stated Google is "directly engaged" with the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. Assange said, "The chairman of Google, Eric Schmidt, set up a company to run the digital component of Hillary Clinton's campaign." As reported by Quartz in late 2015, an under-the-radar startup known as "The Groundwork" was funded by Schmidt "to ensure that Clinton has the engineering talent needed to win the election." Assange went on to say that "[...] once Hillary Clinton becomes president, those people in Google, like Jared Cohen, will be placed into positions around the new Clinton presidency." Controlling the majority of the world's smart phones, Assange adds, raises even more serious concerns in light of the company's growing and monopolistic influence. "Google controls 80 percent of the smart phone market through its control of Android and if you control the device itself -- that people use to read -- then anything that they connect to through that device you have control over as well. [...] Google has gotten into bed with the Obama administration in a very significant way," Assange stated. "It is the company that visits the White House more than any other -- averaged once per week in the last 4 years."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Julian Assange: Google is 'Directly Engaged' In Hillary Clinton's Campaign

Comments Filter:
  • Democracy? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @02:05AM (#52272759)

    Sounds more like monopoly than democracy

    • by jandersen ( 462034 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @03:20AM (#52272989)

      The trick is to get hotels on some of the more expensive addresses. Unfortunately they are all occupied by big property tychoons.

    • by fey000 ( 1374173 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @03:21AM (#52272995)

      Go directly to jail, do not pass Go(ogle)

    • Re:Democracy? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ultranova ( 717540 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @09:01AM (#52274299)

      Sounds more like monopoly than democracy

      What we have is corporate plutocracy. Google will push it towards technocracy, which is probably a good thing. Furthermore, Google receives its revenue through targeted advertising, which requires making sure people have at least some disposable income and communication channels which make it possible to profile them.

      You'll always have a corporate overlord as long as you have capitalism, so why not a reasonably enlightened one?

      • by dcw3 ( 649211 ) on Thursday June 09, 2016 @10:48AM (#52281689) Journal

        You'll always have a corporate overlord as long as you have capitalism, so why not a reasonably enlightened one?

        Not if we properly enforced the anti-trust laws. Monopolistic behavior is not capitalism. And enforcement of that is required to actually have competition, which is one of the primary goals.

    • by quax ( 19371 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @11:17PM (#52279389)

      Well, in their defense, they did promise to do no evil.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @02:06AM (#52272763)

    No company gets the breadth of google without getting in bed with the government.

  • by Edis Krad ( 1003934 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @02:38AM (#52272865)
    Wasn't something like this portrayed in House of Cards? [bustle.com]
    Also, would love to see some evidence to the fact, though I have to admit it doesn't sound so farfetched.
  • by Max_W ( 812974 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @03:32AM (#52273021)
    It would be a punishment of sin to be obliged to watch on TV for the next eight years either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. I bow down on my knees, and I repent.
  • by Overzeetop ( 214511 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @05:41AM (#52273353) Journal

    Powerful person provides money or knowledge to forward a political leader who he knows will provide access to power for personal or financial gain.

    How ignorant of history do you have to be to realize that this has been the pattern of human politics since the emergence from primate tribes so small that the strongest alpha male became the leader buy killing or threatening to kill every other male strong enough to compete for alpha?

    Every single, viable candidate for president has had the backing of massive financial wealth with the intent to influence politics or a cult following with the skills to sway the population. Do you think newspapers, when they were the key communications mechanism, stayed above that? Hell no. Do you think JP Morgan bailing out the US Treasury at the end of the 19th century was out of the goodness of his heart? Fuck no - he was in it for the power and the money, and he was rich enough that it worked and made him hat much richer and more powerful.

    Julian needs to get off his high horse and realize that he's just telling ever single person who knows history what we ALREADY know. The people at the top are corrupt as sin, because that's how you get to the top. You're really just hoping you have a choice where one of the candidates has corruptions which match your personal desires.

  • by wiredog ( 43288 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @06:25AM (#52273475) Journal

    Good thing we aren't giving any credence to any wingnut conspiracy sites.

  • Four more years (Score:4, Informative)

    by tomhath ( 637240 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @06:57AM (#52273631)
    Google and Obama have been scratching eachother's backs for the past eight years. No surprise that their next purchase was Hillary.
  • ahhhh (Score:4, Insightful)

    by NetNed ( 955141 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @10:12AM (#52274867)
    So what about her big contributions she got from the supposedly evil Koch brother also??? No one going to cover that too?
  • How ironic (Score:4, Insightful)

    by erp_consultant ( 2614861 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @10:58AM (#52275229)

    So here is Hillary Clinton having a speech last night after essentially securing the Democratic nomination. She touched on most of the typical democratic talking points...equality for all, helping the working class get a fair shot, etc. This is while wearing a $12,000 Armani jacket: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/06... [cnbc.com]

    If this isn't the height of arrogance I don't know what is. That jacket is worth more than the yearly salaries of some of her supporters. Not to mention that many of the people on her campaign are unpaid volunteers. At least when these phony celebrities show up on humanitarian missions in some of the poorest parts of the world they at least have the humility to leave the Rolex at home.

    This is the same party that was criticizing Trump for allegedly lying about how much money he raised for Veterans groups (he claimed 6 million, it was actually 5.6 million. By the time it's all said and done, it will be over 6 million). Emperor Hillary has donated a grand total of $75,000 to Veterans groups - over the past 8 years. This is from a woman with a net worth that far exceeds $100,000,000, much of it in dubious fashion. Am I surprised? Not in the least.

    I wonder how many of her supporters are made up of the following:

    1) People that support her solely based on the fact that she is a woman, putting aside past and current scandals and suitability for office questions.
    2) People that simply hate Trump, for whatever reason.

    What is striking to me is the popularity that Bernie Sanders still enjoys. I watched his speech last night in California and I'm telling you his supporters are worked up and they love this guy. I've read polls where up to 25% of Sanders supporters will not support or vote for Hillary. Some of them will even vote for Trump. That has to be alarming to the Clinton campaign, especially in light of Sanders vow to hang in to the bitter end.

    I would say that the Emperor has no clothes but evidently she does...expensive ones at that.

"There is no statute of limitations on stupidity." -- Randomly produced by a computer program called Markov3.

Working...