Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

publicpolicy.googleblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 260 posts

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#91

Post by forrestthewoods »

tremon wrote: post #80
forrestthewoods wrote: post #39

Earlier 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.

That's because we don't know enough about the actual text to make a substantial argument. All we have are leaked drafts. And by the time the documents are finalized, it will be signed before the ink of the text is dry. Do you know how many consumer advocacy groups are included in the negotiation process for TPP? I gather it's zero. Given the process is specifically intended to keep out consumers, why should we believ…

Not true. Full text had been available since November.

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/tran...

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#92

Post by tremon »

jonknee wrote: post #67
sounds wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Has there ever been a trade agreement that was not drafted in secret?

Have there been many trade agreements that were drafted by corporations instead of government representatives?

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#93

Post by jonknee »

tremon wrote: post #86
jonknee wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, there's a big difference between state enforced rules about where data can be and client requested rules.

Except that in a functioning democracy, state-enforced rules are client requests from an entire population.

It's nice to have the freedom to store your data where you'd like.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#94

Post by jeremycw »

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…

Do you happen to know which countries involved in the partnership require local storage of data?

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#95

Post by Buge »

Jerry2 wrote: post #76

Speaking of Google and politics, Julian Assange claims that Google has made a deal with Hillary Clinton and is backing her [0]. That's not far-fetched considering how intertwined Google and White House are. The Intercept has a really detailed analysis and a chart showing how Google and WH share so many lobbyists and executives [1]. Google wants to keep Democrats in the White House so they can continue their influence…

That autocomplete thing looks innocent to me. They seem to block all "firstname lastname liar" and "firstname lastname criminal" autocompletes.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#96

Post by jonknee »

tremon wrote: post #92
jonknee wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Has there ever been a trade agreement that was not drafted in secret? Have there been many trade agreements that were drafted by corporations instead of government representatives?

Of course the government was involved. Of course corporations were involved (it's trade, completely pointless without corporations!).

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#97

Post by dragonwriter »

tremon wrote: post #92
jonknee wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Has there ever been a trade agreement that was not drafted in secret? Have there been many trade agreements that were drafted by corporations instead of government representatives?

> Have there been many trade agreements that were drafted by corporations instead of government representatives?

Pretty much all major trade agreements of the modern era have been largely drafted by corporate lobbyists, so, I guess "yes" is the answer you are looking for.

Why do you ask?

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#98

Post by npunt »

Jerry2 wrote: post #76

Speaking of Google and politics, Julian Assange claims that Google has made a deal with Hillary Clinton and is backing her [0]. That's not far-fetched considering how intertwined Google and White House are. The Intercept has a really detailed analysis and a chart showing how Google and WH share so many lobbyists and executives [1]. Google wants to keep Democrats in the White House so they can continue their influence…

On [2], the article you link to provides strong evidence for why Google isn't doing that, and if it was its not specifically for HRC but for just about any person. In other words, they're simply running search differently from Yahoo and Bing.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#99

Post by dragonwriter »

Buge wrote: post #95
Jerry2 wrote: post #76

Speaking of Google and politics, Julian Assange claims that Google has made a deal with Hillary Clinton and is backing her [0]. That's not far-fetched considering how intertwined Google and White House are. The Intercept has a really detailed analysis and a chart showing how Google and WH share so many lobbyists and executives [1]. Google wants to keep Democrats in the White House so they can continue their influence…

That autocomplete thing looks innocent to me. They seem to block all "firstname lastname liar" and "firstname lastname criminal" autocompletes.

Hasn't Google been sued multiple times for defamation based on the mere existence of that style of autocomplete suggestion?

That would seem to adequately explain why they might block them...

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#100

Post by JoshTriplett »

kinkdr wrote: post #63
JoshTriplett wrote: post #32

Earlier 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.

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?

If there were a widespread problem with governments mandating market segmentation, I'd certainly want to see that. But it seems rather unlikely that a trade agreement like this would restrict the ability to do business with a company that segments app stores by country. Consumers can make that choice for themselves, just like they can choose whether to do business with a company based on where they store their data or whether they have a local presence.
Post reply on HN