> Vanguard and blackrock are the major share holders across the whole of big tech.
This is simply a false statement. Holding a single digit percentage of a company doesn’t make you “the major shareholder”.
> As I said, this is public info and people can check that whatever you can post on this forum.
They should check, and so should you.
> And again, I am not on the unbelievable side here, you are: you have to proove this duo which are the major owners in all of big tech,
They aren’t ‘major owners’. They own a minority of shares, whether considered together or separately.
> do not have any say in the steering of the companies they _own_
They don’t own the companies.
They own a small percentage of the shares of each of the companies, completely insufficient to win any votes.
I see you’ve walked back your claim about Google now that you’ve checked the facts. At some point hopefully you’ll see that wherever you got this whole argument from, you have been misinformed.
> No where do I see dang claiming he trusts Hersh. You're just putting words into their mouth now.
I’m not putting words in anyone’s mouth.
Given that it’s clear he wouldn’t give this post special treatment if it wasn’t from Hersh, we can reasonably infer that dang trusts Hersh more than a random poster as you suggest he should.
I don’t think you represent dang, and at question here is dang’s reasons for giving the story special treatment, which unless you are a dang sock puppet you don’t have special insight into.
Presumably not with just anyone who reported that claiming to have a source, but only because it’s Hersh.
As far as I can see your position evaluates to ‘dang trusts Hersh‘.
Since it’s 2023 and we use machines to do our thinking now, I consulted ChatGPT about this. I draw your attention to the last paragraph.
—————
strawpeople: Can Seymour Hersh’s reporting always be trusted?
chatgpt:
Seymour Hersh is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who has had a long and storied career. While he has been praised for his investigative reporting and his ability to uncover important stories, it is important to note that not all of his reporting can always be trusted. Like any journalist, Hersh is human and may make mistakes or have biases that affect the accuracy of his reporting.
Additionally, some of Hersh's reporting has been called into question, and he has faced criticism for making claims that are not supported by evidence or for relying on sources that are not credible. For example, in 2017, Hersh faced criticism for his reporting on the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun, Syria, which some experts said was based on unreliable sources and was contradicted by a large body of evidence.
In conclusion, it is important to approach Hersh's reporting with a critical eye and to carefully evaluate the evidence and sources he relies on. While some of his reporting has been praised for its accuracy and impact, it is not always reliable and should be independently verified.
If the story isn’t true, then it isn’t just making you think about what the US government is doing. It’s making you fantasize about it based on an unknown person’s political agenda.
> we are seeing things like declines in lifespans and increases in suicide, but I don't think mental illness is increasingly nearly as much as the stats would lead you to believe at face value.
This just seems like a flat out contradiction. How would suicides ‘skyrocket’ if mental illness is not increasing.
Agreed that 2012 may be irrelevant and we may not know the cause.
> If I recall properly, vanguard is usually the biggest major owner something like between 10% and 20% and blackrock not far behind
Wrong.
Just as you are wrong about Blackrock or Vanguard having the ability to fire Google’s CEO, or having chosen Apple’s CEO. I note that you continue to evade this point despite it being central to your reasoning.
Why make these silly conspiratorial arguments if they can be debunked using easily googled facts? Why double down when you’ve been caught out? Are you just hoping people won’t check?
You’re confusing leverage and political positioning with competence and capability.
Not that all managers are incompetent. Some are indeed inspired and or excellent. However these are rare. Just as there are many average engineers who aren’t very productive, so there are many managers who aren’t very capable and are just in their position because they were in the right place at the right time.
Blackrock and Vanguard didn’t choose Tim Cook, Jobs did. Sundar Pichai was chosen by Larry and Sergei, who still have control of the voting shares in Google.
Even if they did have the power to fire one of these CEOs, that doesn’t give them any leverage at all over small details like browser strategy, because their only option would to replace the CEO with someone who understands much less about the company. I.e. they can really only do anything if the CEO is manifestly failing.
Honestly your argument doesn’t work, and doesn’t reflect shareholder influence.
> Scams have been around as long as technology, and even the original Apple iPhone demo was completely faked. The mock-up didn’t work at all; Steve Jobs followed a carefully constructed choreography to mislead his audience into thinking it did
This is totally false. The iPhone demo wasn’t a mock-up. It was alpha software that worked to do exactly the things that were demonstrated. Of course there was some choreography to avoid known bugs as there is in any demo, but in fact Jobs did deviate from the script, scaring the developers who were present, but it didn’t crash.
If the author is willing to lie outright about this story or unwilling to do even basic fact checking, then nothing in the story can be trusted.
No. I’m saying you’re just wrong about them being major owners. If it was true, you’d be able to easily show us some evidence.
Blackrock and Vanguard are minority shareholders in the companies you list and don’t have enough votes to control the boards or fire executives.
You are simply making false claims about who owns these companies. That’s all that’s happening.