Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 153 posts

Re: Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans

#31

Post by abraves10001 »

protomyth wrote: post #22
abraves10001 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean I understand that we don't want stagnation of ideas and certain sects continuously ruling government. However, the reason that they are lobbyists is because they are generally experts on the subjects, in no small part due to their government experience. Removing all former government workers as lobbyists a blanket move is heavy-handed and poorly thought out.

Your version sounds good, but that's not the majority of what happens. They are lobbyists because they know people and its often a cushy, legal payoff for employees who helped the company secure and manage contracts while in government service. The most common reward is as an employee hire after they retire from government services, but the lobbyists often have their origin in the same process.

I don't disagree. My statement sounded far too overarching. Obviously, a lot of jobs are handouts in form of repayment. I don't think this should be encouraged but I don't think a law banning former federal employees is going to diminish the numerous concerns that lobbying brings up and potentially diminishes the quality of people advising current government.

Re: Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans

#33

Post by protomyth »

TorKlingberg wrote: post #29
protomyth wrote: post #3

This is probably going to be a hard problem for a lot of companies. Spending quite a lot of money on Democrats and little on Republicans looked like a good strategy given the polling, but now they have to deal with a office holder that is not the least concerned with building bridges and has a bit of vengeful streak. Not to mention all the contacts they have built up in the permanent staff might not be there as long…

I wonder if Google employees will revolt, if the company does as you suggest and order them to not say or do anything that might anger Trump.

does as you suggest and order them to not say or do anything that might anger Trump.

Could you clue me in on where I said that? If you mean my doodle comment, then that's really not about Trump per se, its more about lack of attention to things his base cares about and might lead to problem.

Re: Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans

#34

Post by guelo »

arebop wrote: post #21
rudolf0 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt Google or any other SV corporation would ever agree to help with a Muslim registry. Even if somehow the top leadership of such a company were to agree (which I doubt), you'd see defections, sabotage, and heavy leaks almost immediately.

Palantir being the exception that proves the rule.

Doubt they're the only one. For all the talk of noble ideals in SV the only real principle is money.

Re: Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans

#35

Post by mrtksn »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #24
mrtksn wrote: post #23

Depending on how Protectionist Trump actually becomes, global companies like Google and Facebook may have huge challenges. Russia and China already had the idea of local alternatives and the EU was pushing for data protection for a while. Governments might decide that it is not good idea give that much information about their population to the USA and maybe we will see the end of truly global companies. It might be g…

I think you mean, "the end of truly global companies in the U.S." I firmly believe a protectionist stance here is hurting the US as much as anyone else.

The end of the truly global companies in the US or anywhere. Especially the companies relying on mass adoption and data collection will probably be forced to scale back and if feasible run separate Data centres in individual countries and be strictly regulated.

Re: Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans

#36

Post by AnthonyMouse »

It's January. Mark this as "least surprising story of 2017" and it will still be true at the end of the year.

Political parties sell themselves to voters as "be on our team". The other team wants to rape women or murder babies, don't vote for them.

Corporations vote with money instead of with votes. When you vote with votes and the other guy wins, you lose. When you vote with money and you pay both sides, you always win.

Google doesn't pay Republicans because they hate women or want to Build A Wall, they pay Republicans because Republicans are now in a position to destroy network neutrality, they don't want that to happen, and politicians don't listen to corporations who don't pay them.

Parties constrained by a system do what you would expect them to. If you don't like it you have to change the system.

Re: Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans

#37

Post by gukov »

alphonsegaston wrote: post #8

I'm not optimistic, but I hope that the Trump era finally puts an end to the illusions people had about tech giants as a vehicle for social progress. We're stepping into an era of extreme inequality, authoritarianism, and intolerance, all borne on the back of their rise. They may not be the origin of these trends, but they certainly rode them to tremendous wealth without anything besides the most superficial concerns…

Can't expect companies based in SF to be anywhere near politically neutral.

Re: Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans

#38

Post by notpc »

I'm going to very amused as Google's "don't be evil" facade comes crumbling down, having lost their revolving door with the US government and protection from antitrust enforcement.

Google has a very small business, search & ads, that basically prints money. They then spend almost all of that money on unprofitable operations that crush competition by 1) setting the price-point for many services at free, 2) intercepting customers (e.g. Google Flight and Hotel bookings at the top of search results), and 3) poaching all of the best talent and wasting it away on these terrible side businesses.

Re: Google, in Post-Obama Era, Aggressively Woos Republicans

#39

Post by protomyth »

abraves10001 wrote: post #31
protomyth wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your version sounds good, but that's not the majority of what happens. They are lobbyists because they know people and its often a cushy, legal payoff for employees who helped the company secure and manage contracts while in government service. The most common reward is as an employee hire after they retire from government services, but the lobbyists often have their origin in the same process.

I don't disagree. My statement sounded far too overarching. Obviously, a lot of jobs are handouts in form of repayment. I don't think this should be encouraged but I don't think a law banning former federal employees is going to diminish the numerous concerns that lobbying brings up and potentially diminishes the quality of people advising current government.

I got your meaning (and think the down voting on your original comment is a bit harsh), but the pendulum is probably due to swing the other way, hard. I really don't know what a good balance point is. I have heard a 5 or 7 year ban bandied about, and maybe something time-based is the answer. I think until it goes to a total ban we won't find the true balance point.
Post reply on HN