Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership • Hacker News Board

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#51

Post by _delirium » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 11:06 PM UTC

forrestthewoods wrote: post #39

davb wrote: post #21

This endorsement surprises me just because the TPP is so blatantly anti-consumer, pro-corporation. I'm under no illusion that Google's anything other massive tech-savvy advertising company, but the self-serving corporate side of the company is usually hidden behind the pretty veneer of "tech for the people". Supporting a trade agreement like the TPP (especially given the lack of transparency in the process) lacks the…

Is it anti-consumer? Convince me. I'm open. But I also want you to include counter-arguments. I want to hear both sides to reach a conclusion. So far most anti-TPP arguments I've read are high on rhetoric and low on substance.

One specific part I don't like is that it would require signatories to enforce a DMCA-like ban on circumvention of DRM mechanisms. The US already has such a ban, but putting it in a treaty makes it worse (harder to repeal), and it would create one in countries which don't already have one. In general the intellectual-property related provisions seem not good to me, almost exclusively in the direction of more restrictions on what regular people can do with their data and devices.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#52

Post by bla2 » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 11:06 PM UTC

Disappointing. The were a loud voice against SOPA/PIPA. All it takes for them to do an about-face is a bill that includes a few bits about protecting multinational internet companies.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#53

Post by jkeler » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 11:07 PM UTC

I would better trust EFF on this: https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#54

Post by MichaelGG » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 11:08 PM UTC

notthegov wrote: post #17

If these benefits are legitimate, why can't they focus on 5 or 10 specific objectives, and write them in some concise form like the Bill of Rights? Why does it need to be 2,000 pages and full of complex, obsfucated concepts and details? Is the only way for progress to happen? And even if the TPP is completely beneficial, it is still part of the philosophy of economic integration. Which at its heart is promoting the c…

I don't really know, but I'm guessing it's a comprehensive deal. With tons of players with their own goals. So there's probably plenty of stuff like "your eggs aren't round enough to be labelled like that, but we'll allow them if we can call our meat like this". And "we don't like your copyright law, but in exchange for ... we'll allow it". Layer on exceptions and whatever else and the page count goes up real quick.

Even selling a company for just 8-figures is more than 5-10 pages and these deals far eclipse that amount and probably directly involve hundreds of people if not thousands.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#55

Post by revelation » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 11:08 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #27

revelation wrote: post #22

The free flow of information must be why they released this tidbit on Friday afternoon? If they are so proud, surely a banner on Google is appropriate. It's for a good cause after all.

This is how you dump a story. Everyone's on the way out the door for the weekend. Google will publish something "amazing" on Monday morning to excite everyone to the level that people forget Google sold them out three days prior.

It's how you publish bad news, specifically.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#56

Post by Eleopteryx » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 11:09 PM UTC

MrZongle2 wrote: post #50

Eleopteryx wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_the_... all of the remaining candidates oppose the TPP.

At the moment. Senator Obama opposed quite a few things as well.

>At the moment.

Well, yes, people lie. My point was that Donald Trump wasn't a special case in terms of his position on the TPP.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#57

Post by ocdtrekkie » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 11:10 PM UTC

davb wrote: post #21

This endorsement surprises me just because the TPP is so blatantly anti-consumer, pro-corporation. I'm under no illusion that Google's anything other massive tech-savvy advertising company, but the self-serving corporate side of the company is usually hidden behind the pretty veneer of "tech for the people". Supporting a trade agreement like the TPP (especially given the lack of transparency in the process) lacks the…

Also interesting: All current Presidential candidates have come out against the TPP. Presumably Obama is pressuring Google to help him push it through before he no longer has a say in the matter. If he can get it through, it's going to be very hard to repeal, but if he doesn't get it through, our next President, whoever that is, will do their best to block it.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#58

Post by jonli1 » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 11:11 PM UTC

Unlike most of the corporations in America, at least Google is transparent about its decisions.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#59

Post by syoc » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 11:12 PM UTC

fraserharris wrote: post #47

syoc wrote: post #43

I see that the point about countries not being allowed to require local storage because >These provisions will support the Internet’s open architecture and make it more difficult for TPP countries to block Internet sites -- so that users have access to a web that is global, not just local. I do however believe that there is a aspect that has been overlooked here. Many cooperations, private and governmentally controll…

TPP binds governments from requiring local data storage, not private contracts.

Thank you for clarifying. The argumentation still stands though.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#60

Post by fixermark » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 11:12 PM UTC

forrestthewoods wrote: post #39

davb wrote: post #21

This endorsement surprises me just because the TPP is so blatantly anti-consumer, pro-corporation. I'm under no illusion that Google's anything other massive tech-savvy advertising company, but the self-serving corporate side of the company is usually hidden behind the pretty veneer of "tech for the people". Supporting a trade agreement like the TPP (especially given the lack of transparency in the process) lacks the…

Is it anti-consumer? Convince me. I'm open. But I also want you to include counter-arguments. I want to hear both sides to reach a conclusion. So far most anti-TPP arguments I've read are high on rhetoric and low on substance.

I honestly can't fathom why this question has been downvoted. It's a reasonable question, and one I share.

It's a large and complicated document; there's plenty of room for bad ideas, and plenty of room for good. The real question is, "Would we rather have nothing?" Because the existing ecosystem of loosely-affiliated nation-by-nation policies is a sh-tshow.