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

161–170 of 260 posts

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#161

Post by kuschku »

rory096 wrote: post #142
forrestthewoods wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true. Full text had been available since November. https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/tran...

To expound on this, "by the time the documents are finalized, it will be signed before the ink of the text is dry" is typical FUD from anti-TPP people who've never bothered reading anything on the subject except other anti-TPP FUD. Negotiating treaties in private is normal, to prevent parties from manipulating public opinion to gain a stronger negotiating position and to prevent kneejerk outcries from the anti-trade…

> Negotiating treaties in private is normal, to prevent parties from manipulating public opinion to gain a stronger negotiating position and to prevent kneejerk outcries from the anti-trade crowd for every random provision any party proposes regardless of its likelihood to actually be in the final text. It is not about evil corporatists secretly conspiring to undermine democracy.

Isn’t this the definition of doublethink?

It will prevent the public from influencing the treaty while it is being made (prevent outcries for random provision), but it will not undermine the ability of the public to influence treaties(It is not about evil corporatists secretly conspiring to undermine democracy)

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#162

Post by bayofpigs »

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.

"little m" shows 'little marco" "low energy b" shows 'low energy bush' "crooked hill" shows nothing related

here's more: http://freebeacon.com/politics/here-are-10-more-examples-of-...

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#163

Post by webkike »

nostromo wrote: post #143
harry8 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

trump isn't genuinely anything but pro-trump.

Hillary reads the same to me, I must say. I have no idea what she genuinely believes. But, honestly, why would anyone run for president unless they were an insane egoist or craved power? It's not a job a sane person would volunteer to do. There are a few rare individuals that do it out of desire to do good, but they seem rarer by the day.

Pretty sure Hillary's views are well aligned with a typical leftist agenda. I don't see her passing pro gun or anti abortion laws for example.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#164

Post by cmdrfred »

pzone wrote: post #121
_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…

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."

With things like WebRTC, I don't think there will be any way to prevent piracy in the future.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#165

Post by imaginenore »

Buge wrote: post #81
imaginenore wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they removed "Don't be evil" as their motto, replaced it with "Do the right thing", which clearly means "make more moneys". They became yet another big corporation.

https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html

That doesn't negate what I said. Why did they even change such a great motto?

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#166

Post by rory096 »

kuschku wrote: post #161
rory096 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To expound on this, "by the time the documents are finalized, it will be signed before the ink of the text is dry" is typical FUD from anti-TPP people who've never bothered reading anything on the subject except other anti-TPP FUD. Negotiating treaties in private is normal, to prevent parties from manipulating public opinion to gain a stronger negotiating position and to prevent kneejerk outcries from the anti-trade…

> Negotiating treaties in private is normal, to prevent parties from manipulating public opinion to gain a stronger negotiating position and to prevent kneejerk outcries from the anti-trade crowd for every random provision any party proposes regardless of its likelihood to actually be in the final text. It is not about evil corporatists secretly conspiring to undermine democracy. Isn’t this the definition of doubleth…

No. It's a deal negotiated between twelve parties with different interests. The public/Congress get ample opportunity to review the completed deal and decide if it's worthwhile, just not access to the minute details of the negotiating process. That protects the treaty from being torpedoed by demagogues stirring up public outrage and drawing arbitrary red lines in order to gain unfair leverage over other parties. It also protects parties from public antagonism for making any concession, even if it's for a worthwhile return.

If everyone is willing to ratify a deal – that is, it's better than no deal at all – it's reasonable to take measures that make it possible for the deal to be reached in the first place.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#168

Post by JoshTriplett »

izacus wrote: post #139
JoshTriplett wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Which sounds like you're admitting that the treaty only benefits profits of large corporations and stops as soon as they'd have to give up a little bit to actualy help consumers across the world?

Don't put words in my mouth.

I think the majority of the treaty is terrible, spreading laws that prop up businesses based on copyright and patents, and on balance I think that no country should adopt it.

In this one particular case, it appears to remove artificial restrictions that prevent consumers from doing business with companies they otherwise want to do business with. I'm in favor of that, whether it's "you can't block a company from providing a service to a person in country X who wants that service just because they don't store data in country X" or "you can't block a company from providing a service to a person in country X who wants that service just because the company doesn't provide an identical service to a person in country Y". Either way, you're preventing two parties who want to work with each other from doing so.

(Also, keep in mind that many of the "must store data locally" laws have less to do with protecting that data and more to do with making it available for attempted seizure.)

If the people of a given country want to refuse to use a particular service because it stores their data elsewhere, or doesn't have a local presence, or shows them a different selection than people in other countries, or any of a thousand other reasons, they can already choose to do so. But there's a huge difference between choosing not to use a service and preventing anyone else from using it.

I don't directly care about the profits of companies, large or otherwise, except to the extent those profits mean they've built something people want. I do care when people can't use a service they want because their country doesn't think they should or wants to prop up another. And I care when a company owned, operated, and staffed within one country suddenly has to worry about another country's government, rather than just what their users want.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#169

Post by philwelch »

kuschku wrote: post #161
rory096 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To expound on this, "by the time the documents are finalized, it will be signed before the ink of the text is dry" is typical FUD from anti-TPP people who've never bothered reading anything on the subject except other anti-TPP FUD. Negotiating treaties in private is normal, to prevent parties from manipulating public opinion to gain a stronger negotiating position and to prevent kneejerk outcries from the anti-trade…

> Negotiating treaties in private is normal, to prevent parties from manipulating public opinion to gain a stronger negotiating position and to prevent kneejerk outcries from the anti-trade crowd for every random provision any party proposes regardless of its likelihood to actually be in the final text. It is not about evil corporatists secretly conspiring to undermine democracy. Isn’t this the definition of doubleth…

The public gets to influence the implementation or ratification of the final treaty, but they don't get to be a party to the entire negotiation process.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#170

Post by labster »

daveguy wrote: post #146
nostromo wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hillary reads the same to me, I must say. I have no idea what she genuinely believes. But, honestly, why would anyone run for president unless they were an insane egoist or craved power? It's not a job a sane person would volunteer to do. There are a few rare individuals that do it out of desire to do good, but they seem rarer by the day.

I wish Elizabeth Warren had run. She is a prime example of a sane down to earth person turning down the position everyone else lusts after.

She's so sane and down to earth that she'd rather be the most powerful Senator for 20 years than President for 4 years. You should be thanking her for playing the long game.
Post reply on HN