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

121–130 of 260 posts

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#121

Post by pzone »

_delirium wrote: post #51
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.

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 restrict…

There's essentially no enforcement of copyright law in many of the signatory states. Yes DRM kind of sucks, but rampant piracy also kind of sucks. The way the US does it I think is closer to optimal than the way Vietnam does it. That's why Google calls the provisions "balanced copyright enforcement."

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#122

Post by patrickaljord »

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.

Not the entire population, only a small majority, and I'm being generous.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#123

Post by tzs »

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…

> And just today, Google was accused of whitewashing Hillary Clinton's record and not showing negative autocomplete terms.

That was a pretty silly accusation. It was mostly based on comparing Google autocomplete terms to Bing and Yahoo autocomplete terms. To show a pro-Clinton bias on the part of Google what you need to concentrate on is comparing Google autocomplete terms for Clinton searches to Google autocomplete terms for other people.

Do that experiment and you find that the kind of things that appear to be removed from Clinton autocomplete are also removed from the autocomplete of many other people, including many politicians, current and past celebrities, and criminals.

There is a good discussion of how Google tries to avoid autocompletes that could be seen as disparaging here [1].

[1] http://www.clayburn.wtf/2016/06/google-probably-isnt-manipul...

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#124

Post by golergka »

It's sad to see that most of the commenters here decided to discuss it as a news tweet ("Google endorses TPP which, as we know, is terrible") instead of a text that makes some points on the matter. Seems like most don't even address the text in any way — which means people don't stop for a second to doubt their opinion on TPP, or even discuss arguments of the "enemy camp".

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#125

Post by patrickaljord »

tremon wrote: post #103
jonknee wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well then pick business relations that do so, that's what private contracts are for.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#126

Post by superobserver »

dragonwriter wrote: post #115
superobserver wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She said so after she said she supported it. It will be a matter of time until she "evolves" on that matter again. Mark my words, if she's elected.

> She said so after she said she supported it. She said she supported it while it was being negotiated, and later (as a candidate, when the final text was available) said she opposed the final form, and that it no longer had the specific features she expected the final form would have when she supported it.

We can debate the "he said she said" until the cows come home. It is no mystery that HRC supports and champions oligarchic policies. The TPP is being pushed by the Obama administration who have added their support to her presumptive nomination. There's no fooling anyone here about what may very well happen.

The timing of this is peculiar, but if it has nothing to do with HRC, we'll simply have to wait and see if that is the case.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#127

Post by jonknee »

tremon wrote: post #103
jonknee wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, which you can specify in your vendor agreement (and will be able to after TPP).

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#128

Post by jillop »

npunt wrote: post #98
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.

Try typing in 'crooked h' and see how that autocompletes. Keep adding letters...

Guess what? A week and a half ago you got 'crooked Hilllary' now you don't, and it's nowhere to bed found....

They censored the results in her favor, no doubt about it.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#129

Post by pzone »

tptacek wrote: post #114
_delirium wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 restrict…

How exactly does putting a provision in a treaty make it harder to repeal? The same actions that ratify the treaty (for instance, passing an enabling domestic law) can be used to break it.

It's like how the US is slightly less likely to unilaterally legalize marijuana at the federal level, it is signatory to several UN treaties which forbid it from doing so.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#130

Post by ocdtrekkie »

fixermark wrote: post #105
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hillary's emails include back and forth with Jared Cohen, a former State department employee who now heads a Google subsidiary called Jigsaw (formerly 'Google Ideas'). That should be enough to figure out what search terms to use. :)
Post reply on HN