Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

[Cyclops]

You are comparing modern journalism to the press in the 15th century.

I comparing journalism to journalism. If the current state is death then its always been dead, or deadish.

I would argue yes the press has been better then it is right now in our time even. Why bring 15th or 16th century realities? To bring up a point about propaganda? Is that it?

Yep.

If its your way of saying it is always been like this.
I would like to reiterate we live in a digital world where social media, and big tech have more power then they ever had.

Well of course because Big Tech really only arose in the 1970s with IBM, and Big Social Media in the 2000s.

You right business as usual suck and continues to suck, but it is well beyond party loyalty, there is many people who shifted from democrat voters to republican, Even in this last election. Where is actually improved his vote by seven million. I think people often underestimate current unhappiness in the Democratic party and the establishment.

I don't. I thought he got 10 million more than last time?

Yes, that's the "business as usual sucks" part. BTW Trump is establishment, he's a New York billionaire with a string of bankrupted companies and infuriated investors at his heels. Brain dead spin about "the Blue Collar Billionaire" and "the outsider" aside, he was partying with the Clintons and Epstein. The people looking for a change were cruelly lied to.

Trump is a leftist?

No he's a right wing president who enforced his ignorant agenda eg disregarding the ordinary person's half baked notions about COVID contrary to The People's primary self evident right, to life.

Because Thomas Sowell point was about the self righteousness of the left wing ideology. The intellectual, and moral superiority complex that is patent in left wing mentality, probably goes hand in hand with a urbanite snob mentality.

It was a ponderous bit of nonsense "why are my intellectual opponents so lame, and yet so badly dressed?" [smokes pipe]

My point wasn't about charismatic leaders. So no i think the point is missed.

You quote some ideologue of the right, and one example pops its silly bubble. We could cite Bush II's nonsense about freedom while invading Iraq and passing the PATRIOT Act, the Sowell quote has the intellectual force of wet toilet paper.

And on Trump specifically, i think is a bad example, his speech isn't usually one of judgement, or even contempt by the citizens of his own country. Something that differs from several democrat figures for instance. I would say as well the sanctimonious ways of modern "progressives" based on an ever clearer lack of any real solutions to the worlds problems is quite grating, even for a lot of people who are swing voters, also one of the reasons of the success of Trump imo.

Trump moaned about his competence, and had his Muslim travel ban struck down. He claimed to have more popular votes in both elections, wrong both times. He claimed he would clean up the swamp, but Clinton didn't go to gaol. He was smugness personified, and disregarded the wishes of his followers (whether frustrated blue collar workers worried about work, rusted on Republicans rightly worried about a Clinton dynasty, or actual neo nazis looking for the Boogaloo), instead pork barrelling his own businesses. All style, no substance. He foisted his half baked ideology and mocked any dissenters.

Your claim these attributes are the preserve of some imagined Left are plain wrong.

[PointOfViewGun]

Again, the accusation that I have misrepresented source material and that the source material doesn’t support what I’ve said is a bald faced lie. Three specific examples, not zero, of people and organizations on the political left demanding systematic enforcement of political censorship, in addition to the OP example of systematic censorship of factual reporting in the interest of discrediting a scandal that had the potential to impact Biden’s candidacy on the eve of the election. Your refusal to attempt basic background knowledge of the topic you’re trying to debate does not make facts into claims just because you reject them.
Facebook caving to demands to censor incorrect political speech after Zuckerberg had previously refused to do so on free speech grounds
You’ve been given the example of CNN as well as Democrat Congresspeople demanding censorship of right-leaning media networks by TV/Internet providers.
See post 22, also, this:
You’ve also been given the example of the White House announcing a plan to work with social media companies to censor incorrect political speech.
As proven by multiple instances of systematic censorship of facts under the guise of “fighting misinformation,” “misinformation” is more aptly termed “stories Democrats don’t like.” Plenty of misinformation Democrats don’t mind is spread and encouraged, including false claims that the NY Post’s story about the Bidens was “disinformation” and “Russian fake news,” false claims that the lab leak theory was “disinformation” and “racist,” false claims claims that the Capitol Riot was an organized “coup attempt” by right wing groups supporting Donald Trump, etc. The pattern has been proven time and again.
The reasons that Democrats can label things “misinformation” and pressure even companies as large and powerful as Facebook and Twitter into going along with it without too much effort are the same reasons you can’t come up with a single counterexample big tech censoring major stories in accordance with false stories/analyses promoted primarily by conservative media: Leftist institutional dominance has reached such a degree that it is self-evident, and yet that fact poses little, if any, threat to that dominance, because there is no conspiracy nor command structure needed to maintain it.
The vast majority of the US public is fully aware that political views are being censored arbitrarily.

I see that you're still obfuscating bunch of points to make a case. It's a bit tedious to be honest. Ignoring the articles that are hidden behind a paywall, you're trying to connect Democrats grilling Zuckerberg on October 2019 to Twitter and Facebook limiting access to an NYP article in October 2020 as well as to Facebook's decision to no longer keep politicians exempt from hate speech rules on their website in June 2021. Somehow, we're supposed to accept these points as "big tech" acting by the commands of the Democrats to combat Republicans. I call that BS. You can argue that most big tech companies are more aligned with Democrat's ideas, ignoring counter examples like Parler, but to put it forward as a deep state conspiracy simply doesn't have much logic to it, especially considering the decades long silence against sources like Fox News.

Acting at the direction or prompting of another is what "acting at the behest of" means (since there was evidently some confusion).
The claim/insinuation that it was stated that Twitter was responding to directions/explicit prompting will remain false irrespective of the frequency with which it is repeated. Such a claim wouldn't even make sense given the letter was signed after Twitter had initially censored the story. The argument was that Facebook/Twitter almost certainly used the speculative (and politically motivated) suggestion that the story was a product of Russian interference as a basis to throttle it and that this reasoning was encapsulated by the contents of the letter.
In any event, since the evident intention here is to derail the thread/topic with semantic complaints, loaded questions and false claims, don't expect any further responses.

I believe I asked you to provide the specific passage from that letter that you made claims about. Is it such a bad idea to stick to what terms we use actually mean? Or am I supposed to just go with the nature of hysteria in your position you're trying to promote here?

[Lord Thesaurian]

I see that you're still obfuscating bunch of points to make a case. It's a bit tedious to be honest. Ignoring the articles that are hidden behind a paywall, you're trying to connect Democrats grilling Zuckerberg on October 2019 to Twitter and Facebook limiting access to an NYP article in October 2020 as well as to Facebook's decision to no longer keep politicians exempt from hate speech rules on their website in June 2021. Somehow, we're supposed to accept these points as "big tech" acting by the commands of the Democrats to combat Republicans. I call that BS. You can argue that most big tech companies are more aligned with Democrat's ideas, ignoring counter examples like Parler, but to put it forward as a deep state conspiracy simply doesn't have much logic to it, especially considering the decades long silence against sources like Fox News.

What’s tedious is that you continue to lie about the content and aim of both the OP and my subsequent posts to build a strawman about “deep state conspiracies” that no one in this thread has advocated for (and in fact specifically differentiated from more than once), all so you can disparage facts you don’t like without having to acknowledge them. Parler is not a “big tech company.” In fact it was briefly driven offline after being banned by big tech companies, so it doesn’t even work as whataboutism as much as it is another example of what the OP addresses. Similarly, your invention of this “silence” about Fox News is transparent sophistry, given you’ve been asked numerous times for a counterexample of big tech censoring major stories in accordance with false stories/analyses promoted primarily by conservative media - like Fox News - and you can’t/won’t do it.

[Cope]

I believe I asked you to provide the specific passage from that letter that you made claims about. Is it such a bad idea to stick to what terms we use actually mean? Or am I supposed to just go with the nature of hysteria in your position you're trying to promote here?

To clarify, the initial questioning was loaded and badgering:

Does Twitter or Google censor content at the behest of CNN or MSNBC?

So, does Twitter or Google censor content at the behest of CNN or MSNBC?

(It was not argued that Twitter or Google censor at the behest of CNN or MSNBC, nor would the existence of such a “command connection” be necessary to invalidate either my, or the OP’s arguments. At the same time, both CNN and NBC have pressured big tech companies to censor/deplatform/demonitize content).

When this bad faith questioning failed to produce its intended result, the strategy then switched to asserting the false accusation implied by the question:

You claim that Twitter censored tweets because CNN or MSNBC told them to.

That conspiracy is what Cope explicitly claimed earlier.

After these false claims were rebuked, the strategy oscillated back to another loaded question, this time w/regard to the intel letter:

Good. Care to show us where in the letter they are directing or prompting to censor information?

(It was not claimed that the letter explicitly directed censorship, nor would such explicit direction be necessary to validate either my, or OP’s, arguments).

In the same post (#42), the false claims regarding an alleged “command connection” were again repeated and promptly rebuked by the OP:

Somehow, we're supposed to accept these points as "big tech" acting by the commands of the Democrats to combat Republicans.
I call that BS. You can argue that most big tech companies are more aligned with Democrat's ideas, ignoring counter examples like Parler, but to put it forward as a deep state conspiracy simply doesn't have much logic to it, especially considering the decades long silence against sources like Fox News.

(Parler was temporarily censored by Amazon/Apple in accordance with liberal 1/6 sensationalism despite the fact that platform repeatedly reported suspected criminal posts to the FBI and the vast majority of the riotous “co-ordination” took place on larger platforms like Facebook).

[PointOfViewGun]

What’s tedious is that you continue to lie about the content and aim of both the OP and my subsequent posts to build a strawman about “deep state conspiracies” that no one in this thread has advocated for (and in fact specifically differentiated from more than once), all so you can disparage facts you don’t like without having to acknowledge them. Parler is not a “big tech company.” In fact it was briefly driven offline after being banned by big tech companies, so it doesn’t even work as whataboutism as much as it is another example of what the OP addresses. Similarly, your invention of this “silence” about Fox News is transparent sophistry, given you’ve been asked numerous times for a counterexample of big tech censoring major stories in accordance with false stories/analyses promoted primarily by conservative media - like Fox News - and you can’t/won’t do it.

You keep claiming that I lied but haven't been able to show the slightest substance to support it. Please don't lie about what I argue. All you are doing is a smear tactic in the face of failure to address actual points. Parler may not be as big as Twitter but its a popular destination for conservatives which is similarly guilty of censorship. I won't really entertain that idiotic arbitrary, largely impossible to refute, claim that social media companies censor because of what news media reports. It's quite self evident that it doesn't even require much of an explanation. I appreciate the changing narrative around that though. If I push it further it will likely be described as, not at the behest of or in accordance with, but by coincidence...

(It was not argued that Twitter or Google censor at the behest of CNN or MSNBC, nor would the existence of such a “command connection” be necessary to invalidate either my, or the OP’s arguments. At the same time, both CNN and NBC have pressured big tech companies to censor/deplatform/demonitize content).
When this bad faith questioning failed to produce its intended result, the strategy then switched to asserting the false accusation implied by the question:

Oh, it succeeded splendidly. Asking me if whether there was any "example of a large social media platform or search engine censoring legitimate information at the behest of Fox News/Breitbart/AmericanThinker" implied that there were examples for that happening at the behest of non-rightest media. It's a natural choice to ask about Twitter/Google and CNN/MSNBC. Hence, for all intents and purposes, you did argue that. The existence of such a command connection was neccesary in line with your wording. Interesting change of narrative you got there too. Now, its CNN and NBC pressuring big tech companies. Got it. Why? Because someone on there questioned the responsibility of misinformation propagated by companies. Amazing logic you got there.

After these false claims were rebuked, the strategy oscillated back to another loaded question, this time w/regard to the intel letter:
(It was not claimed that the letter explicitly directed censorship, nor would such explicit direction be necessary to validate either my, or OP’s, arguments).

"Loaded" seems to mean "legitimate questions that I fail to respond to with anything of substance" here. Again, you talking about providing an example of "social media/search engines censoring information at the direction/prompting of conservative outlets" pretty much implies that that letter, which was used as a source for the censors, had directions or prompting for social media companies to censor information. You can't have one set of standards for your claims and then expect a higher one for the opposite side. Not good.

In the same post (#42), the false claims regarding an alleged “command connection” were again repeated and promptly rebuked by the OP:(Parler was temporarily censored by Amazon/Apple in accordance with liberal 1/6 sensationalism despite the fact that platform repeatedly reported suspected criminal posts to the FBI and the vast majority of the riotous “co-ordination” took place on larger platforms like Facebook).

See above about Parler.

[Cope]

Oh, it succeeded splendidly.

Only in derailing the thread, not in refuting anything argued either by myself or the OP.

Asking me if whether there was any "example of a large social media platform or search engine censoring legitimate information at the behest of Fox News/Breitbart/AmericanThinker" implied that there were examples for that happening at the behest of non-rightest media. It's a natural choice to ask about Twitter/Google and CNN/MSNBC. Hence, for all intents and purposes, you did argue that.

The statement was an invitation to justify the bad faith claim that the OP was a partisan “rant”. It did not "ask" anything. And if there was an implication, it was that there are no examples of big tech companies reacting to the prompts of conservative media to censor content (and therefore no examples to support the claim that the OP was a partisan rant).

Either way, it has now been effectively conceded that the allegation of an explicit claim of a command conspiracy was, as mentioned, false.

"Loaded" seems to mean "legitimate questions that I fail to respond to with anything of substance" here.

It means laced with a false/controversial assumption and typically designed score an optical/rhetorical, rather than substantive, victory. In other words, precisely the type of question posed in post #15.

Again, you talking about providing an example of "social media/search engines censoring information at the direction/prompting of conservative outlets" pretty much implies that that letter, which was used as a source for the censors, had directions or prompting for social media companies to censor information. You can't have one set of standards for your claims and then expect a higher one for the opposite side. Not good.

It makes no such implication (since the statement was not tied to the letter). Even if it did, by acknowledging that the letter “was used as a source for the censors” it is being inadvertently conceded that it had the effect of prompting censorship/further censorship (which was almost certainly one of the intentions of its publishers).

See above about Parler.

No examples of Parler censoring in accordance with conservative political interests or conservative disinformation have been provided.

[Lord Thesaurian]

NYT was recently caught repeating the same lie about the OP story, falsely claiming the Post’s expose on the Bidens was “unsubstantiated.”

The Times report sneeringly begins that The Post’s article was “unsubstantiated,” which is bull. The Biden team never denied that the laptop is real, and Hunter Biden later told CBS, coyly, that the laptop “could be” his.
People involved in the emails we published, including Tony Bobulinski, have confirmed the content. Our article is “unsubstantiated” because the Times and other outlets don’t want to actually report on it themselves.

The Times can’t even get the timeline right. It writes, “Twitter actually reversed course within a day of its decision to block distribution of the Hunter Biden article, and its chief executive, Jack Dorsey, has called the initial move a ‘mistake.’” While it’s true Dorsey did call it a mistake, Twitter still banned The Post — blackmailing us by saying they wouldn’t unlock our account unless we deleted the Hunter Biden post. We refused; the story was true. Twitter finally backed down, but it wasn’t a day later, it was two weeks.

https://nypost.com/2021/09/13/fec-backs-twitter-over-hunter-biden-censorship

The FEC decided political censorship of the Post’s factual reporting was undertaken for “commercial reasons” because “content moderation policies are central to users’ experience and a core part of its overall commercial product.” This in effect confirms that political censorship is considered “central” to the marketing/branding of these platforms as de facto left wing propaganda organs. The ruling highlights the push to break up/regulate big tech.

Google can swing an election. Facebook knows more about you than your spouse does. Amazon’s Alexa can record your living room conversations. Yet for all the talk about the Big Tech threat, these companies keep getting bigger, more powerful and more abusive.

Republican politicians have focused on political censorship, and it is easy to see why: Conservatives are often censored on major social media platforms. Facebook and Twitter banned President Trump from their platforms while he was president.

Sen. Bill Hagerty of Tennessee has proposed a smart bill that would make major social media platforms common carriers, requiring them to provide reasonable nondiscriminatory access to all users. Airlines can’t ban you from flying because you voted for Mr. Trump, and phone carriers can’t cut you off for opposing abortion. Social media platforms shouldn’t be able to exclude you either.

When Google changes its core search algorithms, the Federal Communications Commission should make sure the change isn’t nefarious. When Google makes deals to increase its market share, the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission should scrutinize and intervene if necessary. And where our antitrust laws are insufficient, we need to write new ones.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-tec...30-11630959185

You keep claiming that I lied but haven't been able to show the slightest substance to support it. Please don't lie about what I argue. All you are doing is a smear tactic in the face of failure to address actual points.

Pure projection. Your “argument” is a strawman you repeat over and over because you're unable to respond to the topic/OP.

Parler may not be as big as Twitter but its a popular destination for conservatives which is similarly guilty of censorship.

Nowhere does the article allege Parler censored major stories in accordance with false stories/analyses promoted primarily by conservative media. In fact it mentions Parler having moderation policies similar to TWC (no pr0n, no death threats/personal harassment, no gore/obscene content, etc).

I won't really entertain that idiotic arbitrary, largely impossible to refute, claim that social media companies censor because of what news media reports. It's quite self evident that it doesn't even require much of an explanation.

You weren’t asked to refute the factual and sourced claims I’ve made. You were asked for a counterexample of big tech censoring major stories in accordance with false stories/analyses promoted primarily by conservative media. You have not given any.

I appreciate the changing narrative around that though. If I push it further it will likely be described as, not at the behest of or in accordance with, but by coincidence...

This is another lie. My "narrative" was never changed, and you were given multiple examples of people and organizations on the political left demanding systematic enforcement of political censorship.

[Cope]

This is an interesting essay from Wesley Yang which touches on some of the themes raised by the OP:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://wesleyyang.substack.com/p/pe...Published=true

[Heathen Hammer]

To be fair Trump did doom the American/globalist establishment. He forever changed the political landscape and made anti-establishment politics mainstream. Even with the elites "fortifying" the elections and pushing one tyrannical edict after another, it is only their political power is steadily slipping away, as confidence in ruling class's legitimacy is evaporating by the hour. At some point upper classes will have to pick to either compromise with "extremist" populism to retain some of their wealth and power... or end up being crushed by it, just like many elites in history before them.

[Cyclops]

So Elon has bought Twitter.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-...tter/101014798

What win for free speech. Instead of a board of a public company founded by an awkward geek controlling the public debate, we now have a private company run by an awkward geek controlling the debate.

There's never more freedom than when just one guy is in charge.

[Coughdrop addict]

I see two possible outcomes:

1. Elon runs it into the ground and it goes out of business.

2. Elon finds out why Twitter had to moderate it's content after it gets filled with lots of "The children of liberals should all be killed. He's how to build a pipe bomb and hide it in a daycare." and "Anders Breivik and Dylan Roof are heroes. We should all do the same." posts.

[conon394]

I see two possible outcomes:

1. Elon runs it into the ground and it goes out of business.

2. Elon finds out why Twitter had to moderate it's content after it gets filled with lots of "The children of liberals should all be killed. He's how to build a pipe bomb and hide it in a daycare." and "Anders Breivik and Dylan Roof are heroes. We should all do the same." posts.

You know personalty I could less about Twitter. But I can think of a lot better ways to spend what ~45 billion dollars vs an ego trip. A 45 billion dollar fund to finance small farmers and help farmers avoid the the trap of say the vertically and and horizontal integrated livestock oligarchy, finance long term plant and animal rotations. Maybe how many public defenders could that fund just out of the return of that much invested. Or that is a ton of college scholarships, or endowments for schools to have art and creative class at the secondary level.

[Lord Thesaurian]

You know personalty I could less about Twitter. But I can think of a lot better ways to spend what ~45 billion dollars vs an ego trip. A 45 billion dollar fund to finance small farmers and help farmers avoid the the trap of say the vertically and and horizontal integrated livestock oligarchy, finance long term plant and animal rotations. Maybe how many public defenders could that fund just out of the return of that much invested. Or that is a ton of college scholarships, or endowments for schools to have art and creative class at the secondary level.

Well, when you’re projected to be a trillionaire, 45 billion is a wild night on the town.

[conon394]

Possibly in your mind (as uber rich person) but a gross misuse of resources in terms of being a member of your society.

[irontaino]

Don't care about Elon or his simps, I just think Twitter should be taken out back and put out of it's misery.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Possibly in your mind (as uber rich person) but a gross misuse of resources in terms of being a member of your society.

Gilded Age 2.0. Gotta love seeing “revolutionaries” simp for Jack Dorsey’s CTO and Bob Chapek because Elon and DeSantis bad. Musk actually went to bat for Dorsey and prevented him from being ousted as CEO by hedge fund vultures in 2020. I’m confident both the leftists screaming “oligarchy” and the conservatives screaming “free at last” will be disappointed. And Musk has said that’s the whole idea. We shall see.

[Cyclops]

Don't care about Elon or his simps, I just think Twitter should be taken out back and put out of it's misery.

Fair enough, I guess Facebook is going so well its had a makeover, and YouTube is becoming less cost effective, maybe Twitter is on the way out too?

Its many people's source of...well if not information, then at least reasons to moan. Its almost as idiotic as Facebook when you think about it. Its bad enough Facebook influenced elections because Zucc's info milking machine (meant to enrich investors) got repurposed to breed and steer flatbirther snakewater QANONs. Twitter just gets people cancelled, Facebook has helped with genocides.

Why does a carmaker need his own media outlet? Musk has been convicted of lying for profit, he called a hero who saved some kids a "paedo guy" because he called out Musk's cheap publicity stunt (and got away with it), and he includes non disclosure and non-litigation clauses in his employment contracts, which to be fair is standard oligarch behaviour but at odds with his "free speech absolutist" stance.

Musk is the most entertaining of the US Oligarchy. He sells flamethrowers, has tantrums, bangs drugged up starlets, in many ways he's quite open. Bezos and Zucc have kept quieter, and Gates even more so (although allegedly even he had a tussle with Musk, about charity, IIRC Elon wanted it to be made worth his while). I suspect there are much richer and more powerful families than theirs but they keep out of the picture altogether. They're not all-powerful, but they seem to have more freedom of action than the US president. Trump couldn't touch Twitter, Musk just bought it. I can't see him just leaving it alone, h;s not that guy.

[conon394]

but they seem to have more freedom of action than the US president. Trump couldn't touch Twitter, Musk just bought it

Well yes or rather not really let's say rather Trump was unable to command the power of the US government to squish Twitter like a bug or nationalize it etc. Because he was a fairly ineffective president. Outside of say Tax cuts for the wealthy and conservative court appointments were he had a solid support from republicans who otherwise would not work effectively with in the congress.

[Cyclops]

Trumps back on twitter, how he has been missed. [edit-tricked by a photoshop! pranked royally, feel a bit silly, as Trump has said he wont return if reinstated]

Well yes or rather not really let's say rather Trump was unable to command the power of the US government to squish Twitter like a bug or nationalize it etc. Because he was a fairly ineffective president. Outside of say Tax cuts for the wealthy and conservative court appointments were he had a solid support from republicans who otherwise would not work effectively with in the congress.

Fair enough. The real Billionaires tend to be less trammelled than the fake Billionaires.

While I'm being corrected I think I'm lazy and wrong to call Musk an Oligarch on reflection. Oligarchs tend to be from a limited class in the original Hellenic political sense, drawn mostly eupatridae. He is a plutocrat in a somewhat meritocratic mixed but mostly plutocratic republic.

Are Russian billionaires really Oligarchs? There's obvious a nexus between political power and wealth, but they're not drawn from an hereditary class. Its a name for them because we use it, but I think its being misused to smear them in advance. They're plutocrats too, meritocratically self selected, probably more ruthless than ours but not a different species.

[Coughdrop addict]

Are Russian billionaires really Oligarchs? There's obvious a nexus between political power and wealth, but they're not drawn from an hereditary class. Its a name for them because we use it, but I think its being misused to smear them in advance. They're plutocrats too, meritocratically self selected, probably more ruthless than ours but not a different species.

There are several differences:

1. In the west the wealthy are still, at least in theory, subject to law. While they may get away with some things more often than the average Joe, there are limits. Some examples would be Phil Spector, Bernie Madoff, and Kenneth Lay who still died in prison despite their wealth and power.

In Russia such a thing would be impossible. As long as they paid the correct bribes to Putin and didn't cross him they could do whatever they wished to whoever they wished. Which leads to the next difference...

2. In the west the wealthy have a great deal of sway over the governments. Not in a "secret world-dominating conspiracy" way, but simply that politicians are more likely to listen to what their biggest and most influential donors have to say. This can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how well your politics line up with the rich persons.

In Russia almost the reverse is true. Putin has almost total control of the wealthy in his country, most of whom are only wealthy because he helped them or allows them to be wealthy because it is his advantage to do so. He has shown no compunctions about jailing or killing any of these oligarchs should they step out of line, as shown with the recent "murder/suicides" of several of them living abroad.