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

221–230 of 260 posts

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#221

Post by vonklaus »

jonknee wrote: post #75
notthegov wrote: post #17

If these benefits are legitimate, why can't they focus on 5 or 10 specific objectives, and write them in some concise form like the Bill of Rights? Why does it need to be 2,000 pages and full of complex, obsfucated concepts and details? Is the only way for progress to happen? And even if the TPP is completely beneficial, it is still part of the philosophy of economic integration. Which at its heart is promoting the c…

The Bill of Rights is really short and simple, but there have been millions of pages of legal precedent discussing and defining it ever since it was enacted. If you made TPP a concise document with 5-10 specific objectives they would all be litigated for decades to decide on the very same special cases that are detailed in the 2,000 page agreement.

The bill of rights is amazing and everything is an anti-pattern. The bill of rights explicitly says what you are allowed to never have done to you. Where as most laws try to prevent specific things. I am not saying law is black and white, but it is certainly difficult to understand, simplicity is important.

> If you made TPP a concise document with 5-10 specific objectives they would all be litigated for decades to decide on the very same special cases that are detailed in the 2,000 page agreement.

I started reading the TPP today, but I didn't get far enough to form an opinion, although I suspect that would be ideal. In a world changing as fast as ours having an agreement span 3 decades seems laughable.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#222

Post by banach »

tzs wrote: post #158
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #2

Wow. Even as the resident Google critic, I never expected Google would sink down to the level of endorsing the TPP. :/ This is a clear break from the EFF's position ( https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp ) and a strong indication of their increasing closed door ties with the Obama administration.

Or it could be an indication that Google is considering a bigger picture than the EFF is. TPP is a comprehensive agreement, covering a wide range of topics and activities. Here are the titles of the major components: Competition & Business Facilitation Competition Policy Cooperating & Capacity Building Cross Border Trade in Services Customs Administration & Trade Facilitation Development Dispute Settlement Electronic…

The scope of this agreement is a problem in and of itself. By stapling together what should actually have been tens or hundreds of smaller agreements the authors of the TPP are ensuring that both support and opposition to the treaty from the broad population are under-informed positions based on ideology. If this were anything else than an anti-democratic power grab, they would break the treaty down into pieces, around which we could have a meaningful and accessible discussion.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#223

Post by banach »

jonknee wrote: post #96
tremon wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!).

Trade was a thing for thousands of years before the rise of corporations.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#224

Post by benevol »

davb wrote: post #21

This 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…

Once you have successfully locked the consumer (rather: society) into your product portfolio and therefor are taking control away from the consumer, once you have sufficiently monopolized your market(s), you can afford behavior like Google's, because you simply get away with it.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#225

Post by thomasdullien »

jeremycw wrote: post #94
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?

The EU under their new data protection regulation:

http://www.computerweekly.com/feature/The-implications-for-s...

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#226

Post by thomasdullien »

Given the intense regulatory pressure (especially in the EU) that Google is finding itself under, this is unsurprising. The TPP would greatly help in easing 3 strategic concerns, which are:

1) Data protection regulation that would severely impact Google.

Google is kinda caught in the crossfire here. The EU is upset at the US intelligence community (Post-Snowden), and wishes to have some assurance of protection for their citizen's communication. The USG does not see why it should do this, and the data protection regulation is the EU's way of saying: If we can't get you to cooperate by being friendly, we will have to pass legislation that will hurt US companies; they can then perhaps pay lobbyists to change your mind. So it is not really Googles fault, but they are caught in the middle.

2) Anti-Trust considerations.

Google is extremely dominant in the European market, much more so than in the US. See #3. The momentum for an Antitrust case in the EU is high.

3) Industrial policy considerations.

Right now, the EU does not have an "Internet powerhouse"; there simply are no modern Internet giants in the EU. Interestingly, both China and Russia have "inadvertently" created local giants (mostly by censorship, which has had the strange side-effect of being equivalent to import tariffs, but for Internet services -- e.g. an accidental protectionist measure that allowed local competition to emerge). Some voices have been heard in recent months that advocate that the only way the EU won't get entirely left behind is industrial policy toward creating an internet giant. This could even mean blocking US-based giants for a while.

If TPP passes, Google will have a very powerful tool to wield against these three concerns. It is entirely rational of them to support it.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#227

Post by ZenoArrow »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #57
davb wrote: post #21

This 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.

> "All current Presidential candidates have come out against the TPP."

All current presidential candidates have come out against the TPP whilst running for office, that's not necessarily going to be their position if they reach the White House. Hilary Clinton was promoting the TPP before the current presidential race.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/...

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#228

Post by ZenoArrow »

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.

If you want a principled presidential candidate on the left of the political spectrum, you could vote for Jill Stein (or hope that Clinton gets indicted by the FBI before the democratic convention so that Sanders can step in, but the chances of that are slim to none).

Jill Stein has similar policy positions to Bernie Sanders, if the Sanders supporters realise this en masse she may have decent chance.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#229

Post by [deleted] »

cpeterso wrote: post #78
_blz2 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DuckDuckGo it is then. Bing is still Microsoft's product, so thats a bummer.

DuckDuckGo's killer feature is its thousands of !bang search shortcuts. They integrate with content sites' own search forms, so the results are similar to but often better than Google's site:example.com searches because the sites' have more domain knowledge over their content. https://duckduckgo.com/bang

[deleted]

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#230

Post by mozumder »

rayiner wrote: post #199
mozumder wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He became a Republican because he is a corporatist. It is Republican orthodoxy to be against consumer and labor rights. He has absolutely no interest in abandoning the TPP, since, as a Republican, he is in favor of exporting US jobs. When dealing with Trump, it it important to ignore what he says, because he will literally lie 71 times in a single speech: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-fact-check_..…

Trump may be a liar, but it's probably a miscalculation to think he has greater loyalty to the Republican Party than to himself. Trump is a real estate guy. His business is intrinsically tied to the US. He can't outsource hotel construction jobs to China. That makes being anti-globalization an easy path for him. Moreover, more capital sloshing around in the US instead of going overseas means lower interest rates for…

His businesses are overseas now.
Post reply on HN