The Guardian published a viral (>25,000 shares on Facebook alone) fake news story about Assange meeting Manafort. Many complaints about it, and yet no action from the Guardian. Not convinced they act on merit of complaint at all.
https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-gua...
Don't forget how Billionaire Peter Thiel sued gawker to bankrupcy.
I thought Thiel bankrolled Hulk Hogan in his sex tape lawsuit against Gawker (IIRC HH didn't have much money after his divorce)
Justice is competitive. The richer you are, the more you can afford to pay to win, and the richer your opponent has to be to even get a chance.
Well, a pissed off Schmidt probably represents more of an existential threat to the Guardian (given Alphabet's current geopolitical power) compared to the US government.
Logical fallacy.
The Internet can clearly railroad anybody regardless of their social standing.
Few US federal for example have to keep running away from kids from an Internet forum called 4chan, despite having 24/7 government bodyguards. The only thing they had to do was to post their home address and names of schools their children were attending, along negative coverage of their court decisions.
Nevertheless, take a look at much more hated "power families." You don't see them ruining journalists, even under much more drivel charged coverage.
So a woman interned at SLC Elections (which later became Cambridge Analytica) and now works at Uber.
After reading the story I fail to see her significance to the story of the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
The author of that piece is trying to make a fact that she's the daughter of Eric Schmidt into some sinister "Silicon Valley elite" impugning that she's the mastermind behind Cambridge Analytica becoming the shady organization.
It's really shady, grasping at rhetorical straws journalism.
"A firm that belonged to someone she knew about through her father" is so much juicier and scandalous than "Palantir".
Strangely, I don't know Eric Schmidt and I do know about Palantir.
Yes, Schmidt can buy more justice than most of us, but in this case, the primary issue is the high cost of justice, not that some people are rich and can afford it.
The idea that rich can bully anyone with lawyers is seductive, but this is The Guardian, a newspaper with its own army of lawyers. Newspaper that published Snowden files and many other controversial things.
If there was no merit to the complaint, the Guardian would tell Schmidt to sod off.
After reading the article it seems to me that the "journalist" threw a completely innocent person under the bus, tried to implicate her into an international scandal only because she happened to be a daughter of a famous person.
It's appalling what Guardian did implicating her in this scandal. And sad because it was otherwise well researched.