241–250 of 260 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Would you mind saying which treaties, please, I'm interested in researching this further.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[citation needed]
Probably referring to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFxFRqNmXKg Was on HN but flagged. Google replies: "Google Autocomplete does not favor any candidate or cause. Claims to the contrary simply misunderstand how Autocomplete works. Our Autocomplete algorithm will not show a predicted query that is offensive or disparaging when displayed in conjunction with a person’s name. More generally, our autocomplete pred…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So much for defending against big banks. :(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. :)
Its always funny when people naively forget that Google, Apple, etc. are megacorps, not some startup ventures. They are the man. This endorsement doesn't surprise me one bit.
Its also always funny when people forget that in 7 of the 9 TPP countries a majority of the ordinary citizens are in favor of it, and in the two where it does not have majority support those in favor handily outnumber those opposed (US 49% in favor, 29% opposed and Malaysia 38% in favor, 18% opposed) [1], and so think that this is some megacorp thing being forced on an unwilling populace. [1] http://www.pewresearch.o…
That survey was from Spring (only a US company would forget that the other hemisphere has a different season) 2015. That was prior to the TPP being publicly available. Attitudes seem to have changed considerably since then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 a…
So what you're saying is that this law is really being kept secret for our own advantage ? Politicians can't be held responsible for their actions because they benefit us ? Can't have public influence over the deal because that would "torpedo" it ? Maybe you should move to Russia or China, and have all your deals and laws done like this. And they give the same argument you're giving : "it's for your own good". And I…
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…
"...Our Autocomplete algorithm will not show a predicted query that is offensive or disparaging when displayed in conjunction with a person’s name..."
So, I guess somebody at Google is deciding what is offensive or disparaging? And we shoulld trust that the standard is being applied equally to both parties, in spite of Google having a vested interest in the Democrats? OK, let's see.
There is a VERY VERY popular nickname for Secretary Clinton, "Crooked Hillary", which has been widely reported on, and is all over Twitter. So let's try:
"Crooked Hil" -> The final item in the list is "Crooked Hillary Bernie". Which makes no sense. Why not remove it entirely?
Now let's try Trump.
"Crooked Tru" -> First item on the list is "Crooked Trump". Which isn't even a meme or anything.
Politics is full of offensive and disparaging statements. By censoring those terms, Google is presenting a worse search product to the world.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if they take any measures that they can claim hurts their business? This is just flat-out false. The second link you provided clearly lays out the criteria for resolution of a conflict via the ISDS: > the dispute settlement provisions of this Chapter shall apply...wherever a Party considers that an actualor proposed measure of another Party is or would be inconsistent with the obligations of this Agreement or that…
Okay, thanks for the correction. I read the posts you linked and understand the issue better. Although we have a different definition of clearly . And I admit that I still have trouble seeing the plaintiffs in these cases as any kind of victims. The first of your links states that companies can use the mere existence of an ISDS mechanism to produce a real "chilling effect" on countries not even part of the dispute. I…
The allegations are breach of contract by the government (Veolia), local government changing the rules after signing a contract in order to make it difficult or impossible for the company to fulfill the contract (Vattenfall), and allegations that the government seized a company's IP without due compensation (Phillip-Morris). If the claims hold up, those are three very good examples of companies being victimized by local governments. The "chilling effect" that you mention is in regards to the Phillip-Morris case, where the author speculates that PM was attempting to use the suit to discourage similar behavior in other signatory countries. It didn't work out for them[0] - the system did what it was supposed to in that case, and (properly) no chilling effect was produced. We cannot simply say that because any threat of legal action may have a chilling effect that the possibility for companies to seek legal remedies is a bad thing.
> So I come away wondering what is the value proposition for the public. Or is this provision all carrot?
The value proposition is that by having an arbitrating entity that is not likely to be under the thumb of this or that sovereign entity, companies are much more willing to conduct business in those countries when they have some assurance that their disputes against a local government won't be heard and denied by a sock puppet court controlled by that same government. It's much the same reason that we domestically use our judicial system and neutral third-party arbitration to resolve disputes, rather than just relying on counterparties to self-police themselves.
[0] http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/18/austra...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. :)
So "Google works closely with Hillary" is sourced to Hillary in the past corresponding with a former employee of hers who is now heading a Google subsidiary? That's borderline tin-foil-hat levels of conspiracy theory. By that logic, Google "works closely" with Oracle via the connection to Eric Schmidt; that's just as believable if you ignore the messy lawsuits they're engaged in.