Or that N could be Nvidia now.

The acronym gets awkward if we don't, though

That makes the argument worse, not better.

Google employees tens of thousands of people. The US intelligence apparatus employees hundreds of thousands of people. In all of that, over eight years, there are 251 people who moved between the two, and because of that absolute rounding error, the entire federal government is beholden to them?

Since you are making the accusation that this is a real conspiracy: statistically, how many people should have rotated between these two giant employers over an 8 year span? The answer isn't zero.

Also, this makes the "data" even more pointless:

"between Google or related firms, and the federal government, national political campaigns and Congress during President Obama’s time in office"

"were appointed to federal advisory boards."

Do you know how many of those boards exist? There are tons of them. I've known a couple of people who have served on them. They're incredibly boring and deal with things like "What accessibility standards should federal government websites support?". Of course you would want people from Google on that type of board.

> 251 individuals in such detected instances just in google. And that report is 10 years old, I'd bet it's 10x that by now.

"Detected instances"

It's so secret that I can name one of them off the top of my head: Matt Cutts. Is he part of this vast conspiracy too?

Given the sentence immediately following the revolving door metaphor, I think it was clumsily being used for data, not personnel. Especially because it's true for obvious reasons.

> The judge in this case put the final nail into Trumps slush fund. But now she's doing his bidding. Is that what you're claiming?

No, they're clearly claiming it's a non-partisan thing and the sitting president is irrelevant, as are the specifics of the virtue signalling happening. Yes, even though they qualified themselves with "this administration". Do you think that the Clintons aren't friends with the state department surveillance abomination or the nastiest parts of government writ large? That Bill or Hillary wouldn't fight tooth and nail to protect this terrible thing that's been wrought? Replace the context with some virtue signal about NATO intervention in Serbia 27 years ago, nothing changes. Partisan politics is for yokels.

> The judge in this case put the final nail into Trumps slush fund.

That's a very different, partisan effort. It's not bipartisan like the Patriot Act was, or domestic surveillance in-general.

> Not everything is a conspiracy. You don't have some special insight into this.

Not everything is as it seems. You can't meaningfully prove that the NSA sat on their hands in the 13 interceding years since Snowden. There's no evidence that US interventionism is on the straight-and-narrow now, you're wishcasting and calling it truth.

[flagged]

So the market damage would be more than the entire planet's GDP?

Citation needed. The idea that somehow my mum can't even find the space bar on her keyboard and yet is competent enough to go through several warning screens to install a custom .apk is just laughable.