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

101–110 of 260 posts

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#101

Post by Fej »

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…

In the US, the signature means little; it must be ratified after the fact by a 2/3 vote of the Senate to come into effect. So - we have a bit of time to influence our lawmakers. It must be a huge, SOPA-level effort, but it can be done. And it must be done.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#102

Post by Fej »

tootie wrote: post #82
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.

There's nothing anti-sovereignty. ISDS only allows foreign entities to sue for breach of a law voted on by our own Congress inasmuch as it effects them.

Why not just use the US courts, then?

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#103

Post by tremon »

jonknee wrote: post #93
tremon wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's nice to know my business relations store my data where I'd like them to.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#104

Post by harry8 »

guelo wrote: post #89
Qwertious wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I could see Clinton doing that backflip but if it's Trump he seems to be genuinely anti-free trade.

trump isn't genuinely anything but pro-trump.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#105

Post by fixermark »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #90
superobserver wrote: post #87

This comes across to me as nothing more than proof that Google is doubling down on HRC being elected now.

I'm sure they are, and Google's definitely worked closely with Hillary before. Though at last public claim, even Hillary said she was against the TPP.

When has Google worked closely with Hillary? I'm not familiar with that story.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#106

Post by izacus »

fixermark wrote: post #60
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.

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.

Yes, we would certanly rather have nothing. Status Quo is infinitely better than forced data transfer of our data to another nation and infinitely better than selling out IP protection to US corporation under ridiculous copyright laws.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#107

Post by gavinpc »

sounds wrote: post #44
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.

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.

Are you referring to the part about corporations being able to sue nations if they take any measures that they can claim hurts their business? [0] I assume that the "ISDS" that Warren refers to in the linked article (which was written before the draft went public), is chapter 28, "Dispute Settlement," in the draft at readthetpp.com. [1] This is already happening, at least with tobacco companies. "Last Week Tonight" did a piece on this.[2]

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-set...

[1] https://www.readthetpp.com/ch28.html

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#108

Post by markdown »

guelo wrote: post #89
Qwertious wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I could see Clinton doing that backflip but if it's Trump he seems to be genuinely anti-free trade.

Didn't she call it the "gold standard"? She wouldn't need to backflip, just stop telling the lies she's been telling during the elections.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#109

Post by MichaelGG »

typon wrote: post #74
MichaelGG wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I would be okay with minutia or details like these, making it a highly complex trade agreement. What i can never swallow is the secrecy. If it really is a good trade deal, why not make it transparent? They should be publishing it online, searchable and indexable with consice summaries for every section. This deal will literally affect billions of people, the people have a right to know.

The reasoning provided is that negotiators can't do their jobs well if every single thing they ask for is publicized then politicized. Unfortunately this ends up with a treaty that no one wants to renegotiate, a take-it-or-leave-it deal with a bunch of sunk costs.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#110

Post by Jerry2 »

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.

Why did they block the word "indictment" but not "racist"?
Post reply on HN