First they manipulated search suggestions in favor of Hillary and now this :(
Just because someone claimed Google manipulated search suggestions doesn't mean they actually did it. The video itself even acknowledged the lack of concrete proofs.
Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership
61–70 of 260 posts
Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership
#62First they manipulated search suggestions in favor of Hillary and now this :(
[citation needed]
Probably referring to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFxFRqNmXKg
Was on HN but flagged. Google replies:
"Google Autocomplete does not favor any candidate or cause. Claims to the contrary simply misunderstand how Autocomplete works. Our Autocomplete algorithm will not show a predicted query that is offensive or disparaging when displayed in conjunction with a person’s name. More generally, our autocomplete predictions are produced based on a number of factors including the popularity of search terms."
Seems like "criminal" and "indictment" are filtered out, which happens to benefit Hillary but seems to apply to other people. I tried a indicted people and it didn't autocomplete.
Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership
#63> prohibits [participating countries] from requiring local storage of data > It prohibits discrimination against foreign Internet services As a Dutchman I can see why Google likes this.
Of the very many terrible things in these trade treaties (most notably the massive expansions of copyright and patents), this is one of the few that seems helpful. It's a step towards not having to care (as much) about national borders on the Internet. A company providing a service accessible to the entire Internet should not have to worry about jurisdictions other than their own.
If that was the spirit of the agreement, then I would expect to see some clauses forbidding geo-blocking, or offering different "app-store" based on your country of residence, etc.. Otherwise it is terribly one-sided.
It is not fair to consider internet being global and borderless when it is in corps advantage, but segmented and controlled when it comes to consumers rights. Right?
Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership
#64This 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.
Why do you assume the next president won't do a backflip and support it once they're in? Politicians break promises, and break opinions a whole lot more.
Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership
#65if Trump wins, there will be no TPP, at least if he sticks to his campaign promises. We all accidentally get a gift if he makes it to the Oval Office.
"if he sticks to his campaign promises"
Hahahahahahaha.
Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
[deleted]
Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
How about anti-national-sovereignty? The secret drafts and the extra-legal processes weaken national sovereignty. I think a strong nation is good for consumers, and a weak nation destroys the consumer base.
Has there ever been a trade agreement that was not drafted in secret? I mean that's pretty much the point in these things, lots of horse trading behind closed doors.
Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are your geopolitical reasons?
I concur with Ian Bremmer's view on TPP. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jniOW9G9TQA At a fundamental level, US defining and guiding the world economic order as it has done with Bretton woods.
I couldn't listen to that video for long, it wasn't quite bearable. Stopped after 2 minutes.
Can you explain it from your point of view? These first 2 minutes repeated 'strong United States' about five times already or so. Is that what you consider 'geopolitical reasons'?
Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this a satirical comment or are you actually using the word "megacorps" seriously? Just because a company is big doesn't mean it is nefarious. You should explain why these companies are evil and how them endorsing TPP is a bad thing.
I take "megacorps" to mean large, established companies with strong political connections. Companies that exert influence both over people's lives and governments; not necessarily malicious.
Precisely. Case in point: Google's various attempts at tax avoidance in Europe. I respect them for trying it, I'm sure every other established corporation is doing the same thing, or trying to at least.
Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of the very many terrible things in these trade treaties (most notably the massive expansions of copyright and patents), this is one of the few that seems helpful. It's a step towards not having to care (as much) about national borders on the Internet. A company providing a service accessible to the entire Internet should not have to worry about jurisdictions other than their own.
To offer an alternative viewpoint. In Canada we have laws that protect personal health data. For instance my doctor cannot save my patient data outside of the country. This is a major pain for SAAS vendors, and I understand google's position. However, as a patient I appreciate knowing that my personal health data is not being sent around the world to other jurisdictions that may not have the same privacy and data pro…
> However, as a patient I appreciate knowing that my personal health data is not being sent around the world to other jurisdictions that may not have the same privacy and data protection laws that we do here.
Having your bits stored on Canadian soil doesn't magically make them secure. The emphasis should be on security, not physical location.