The first part of your reply is irrelevant smearing, isn't it? You don't dispute the accuracy or relevance of the quotes, but instead bring up websites on which they can be found in search engines, and then make vague handwaves about "motives" - as if this has any impact at all.
To be clear, although it's also irrelevant, my motive in this thread has been to explain the long since flagged and dead comment about why George Soros specifically is not the best person to call for strict regulation of tech firms.
I don't know what quote they got, or in what context they used it
Why don't you open the link I helpfully provided and find out then?
The relevant part of the quote is the part you removed: "We are committed to making sure that anyone who chooses to migrate—regardless of motivation—is able to do so safely and with dignity". This quote demonstrates my point that Soros supports the latter, and so your point that it's not equivalent to something else doesn't matter.
its founding in 1993, OSF has reported expenditures of over $11 billion
The Open Society Foundations reported annual expenditures of $827 million in 2014.[17] Its $873 million budget in 2013, ranked as the second largest private philanthropy budget in the United States, after the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation budget of $3.9 billion
In 2017, Soros transferred $18 billion to the Foundation
It's fair to say that they're unlikely to be budget limited. Whether or not that's enough for Soros to achieve his goals is hard to say. I tend to think money has less impact in politics than many like to imagine. There are quite a few examples of lesser funded politicians beating much better funded politicians in elections e.g. Trump v Clinton.
But it doesn't have no impact either, that's for sure.
As for funding academic sociologists, well that's essentially the same as paying for lobbying. I don't think sociology is really a robust area of science: I've seen too many nonsensical papers and research results to believe it's much more than the researchers own opinions projected back at them. So by funding researchers who share Soros' world views, he gets a steady supply of "science" that can be used to sway policymakers.
maybe you can also understand why people felt that spending public money on such posters was reminiscent of 1930s Europe.
Oh look, you just implied people you disagree with might be Nazis. What a surprising and unexpected tactic that I never see these days at all.
The Hungarian government's beef with Soros is that he's rich, he supports the EU's efforts to take away Hungary's voting rights (i.e. making it formally a vassal state of the EU with no power in it at all), he funds political causes that the elected government opposes and so on. It has nothing to do with him being a Jew. This sort of debating tactic is crying wolf and I find myself already ignoring most accusations that someone or some group are "Nazis" because it's almost never true.
Taking refugees is not the same as open borders and mass migration. Nation cooperation is not the same as world government.
Your statement is true. But Soros and his foundation supports the latter in both cases, so it's also not relevant.
Here are some quotes to show this is true. Note that I am not Hungarian and don't particularly care about Soros myself. However the criticisms of what he's doing aren't conspiracy theories or the ravings of lunatics. It's quite well documented and open.
For instance, after a memo was leaked from his foundation, the OSF said this:
The OSF told MailOnline: 'We are committed to making sure that anyone who chooses to migrate—regardless of motivation—is able to do so safely and with dignity ... we support local organizations and policymakers who are working to ensure vulnerable populations are protected, that migrants are empowered to contribute to host societies and home countries, and that migrant voices are heard.
Note the foundation talks about migration in general, not refugees.
With respect to one world government, Soros has said:
“Insofar as there are collective interests that transcend state boundaries, the sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions.”
Albeit, this quote is old, I do not know offhand if he's said similar things recently. I got this from a few minutes Googling, not deep personal knowledge. Suffice it to say that he's a big supporter of the EU and its vision of replacing national governments. Note that the EU is currently trying to force Hungary to take migrants (not refugees), against the Hungarian government's will. So that's one reason they don't like him there.
I'm not even sure what the problem with legal abortion everywhere is
I have no problem with it. I used it as an example of the kinds of policies he funds. For instance, to try and change the politics of Ireland.
Again, "likely"... Likely why? What does he gain from migration policies?
Who knows? It seems to be something of an over-reaction to the Soviet Union, perhaps, but I wouldn't like to speculate without more research. However, if you go to the website of the OSF or look at what things Soros has funded, they're all very much in the area of highly controversial or even unpopular policies that have nothing to do with children but which frequently crop up on social media. The only thing visible on the OSF web page above the fold is about migration. So, I'm not surprised people might look for ulterior motives.
In your last paragraph you just argue with straw men. I haven't mentioned the Koch brothers, or even argued that rich men lobbying politicians is wrong. Just pointed out why some people don't like Soros.
As you appear to know, Soros is something of a divisive figure, especially recently and especially amongst conservatives. It can be seen if you look at very conservative outlets like Breitbart or study the statements of the Hungarian government and other eastern European governments. Hungarian ministers and the PM in particular really hate Soros and frequently attack him.
Essentially, the gist of the complaint is that Soros is the world's largest social engineer. This is obviously very relevant in the context of Soros calling for tech firms to be tightly controlled so people only see "right" information, as he sees it - this would seem likely to be another part of his social engineering effort.
He has set up a fund with about 32 billion dollars in it, explicitly for the purpose of ensuring society follows his preferred path - one world government, open borders everywhere, EU replacing national governments, legal abortion everywhere, mass migration from Africa and so on.
To achieve this Soros must have tremendous influence on politics, which he does through his extensive lobbying, and his fund - being dedicated specifically to the global triumph of liberal politics - routinely makes huge donations to political parties, campaign groups, etc around the world.
Thus an article where he calls for important news feeds to be controlled by governments is concerning for two reasons:
1. It's not just a guy with an opinion. It is a public instruction to all politicians everywhere on what they must do to qualify for more of his money.
2. He is likely being disingenuous about his real reasons. He says "think of the children" but his foundation is not about child protection. It puts far more emphasis on migration policies than that.
Android isn't locked down. But it also isn't exactly smooth. my Android device frequently shows me white screens or startup splashes when doing something as simple as switching tasks. It clearly can't keep multiple apps in memory at once. Somehow iOS manages to produce a much smoother experience. I don't think it's a fundamental issue though. Just a matter of priorities.
To be clear, although it's also irrelevant, my motive in this thread has been to explain the long since flagged and dead comment about why George Soros specifically is not the best person to call for strict regulation of tech firms.
I don't know what quote they got, or in what context they used it
Why don't you open the link I helpfully provided and find out then?
The relevant part of the quote is the part you removed: "We are committed to making sure that anyone who chooses to migrate—regardless of motivation—is able to do so safely and with dignity". This quote demonstrates my point that Soros supports the latter, and so your point that it's not equivalent to something else doesn't matter.