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

131–140 of 153 posts

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

#131

Post by mac01021 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #107
mac01021 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And then they'll be breaking the law. Will they? You don't have to be a registered lobbyist to have access to your congressman. That would be thoroughly undemocratic.

Have all the access to your congressman you like. Just don't take money for doing it.

It's not always that cut and dry, though.

Say you're one of the world's foremost experts on the economics of asteroid mining, and are employed by an asteroid mining company for a tremendous salary.

Suppose you decide that your industry as a whole will be both more productive and fairer to the world at large if you are able to spend a bunch of time educating senators about the intricacies of your field and the effects of different policies that they might introduce.

If you convince your employer to keep paying you while you do that, are you now a lobbyist? Are you being corrupt? Must you forego any income in order to make Congress more informed or to argue for universally beneficial policies?

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

#133

Post by danjoc »

wsh91 wrote: post #70
danjoc wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your replacement won't care. You even gave Alphabet mgmt a nice list of who to downsize.

I can't speak to anyone else's experiences here, but your cynicism seems unwarranted based on mine.

You can wear your heart on your sleeve, but you won't win a hand of poker doing it. Refusing to participate when there are plenty of people who can replace you accomplishes nothing. Appearing to go along while sabotaging the process is far more effective. You've helped no one by proudly showing your hand. If anything, you've shown you aren't willing to do much of anything beyond sign petitions online.

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

#134

Post by ljw1001 »

twblalock wrote: post #122
Angostura wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even if corporations really were sincerely pursuing social progress, that would be bad. In a democratic society, social progress should not be determined by a small group of unaccountable organizations. I disagree. Progress shouldn't be dependent on a small group of unaccountable organisations - but if such want to get out there and run their businesses in an, progressive manner that benefits society as a whole, I'…

> Progress shouldn't be dependent on a small group of unaccountable organisations - but if such want to get out there and run their businesses in an, progressive manner that benefits society as a whole, I'm going to cheer them on. What would you think if big companies like Google and Apple pursued a conservative agenda? What if they were against same-sex marriage or legal abortion? The sword cuts both ways. There is…

The problem is the excessive power of corporations, rather than how they conduct their business. The combination of publicity, lobbying, and donations gives them too much control for a healthy democracy

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

#135

Post by dekhn »

crgt wrote: post #125
rev_null wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather than ban these things, we should just tax them to pay for social services to offset the harm that they do.

I know it's not PC in SV to say so, but I REALLy hate sin taxes. Smokers die younger, have fewer of the oh-so expensive end-of-life years, cost less as a result and yet still are social pariahs who have the privilege of paying extra taxes and extra for health insurance. Fair how?

Smokers may die younger, but the way they die is more expensive than living longer (years of respiratory illness). Also, smokers cause collateral damage through secondary smoke inhalation.

You can call it a sin tax, but another term is "disincentive tax".

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

#136

Post by crgt »

dekhn wrote: post #135
crgt wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it's not PC in SV to say so, but I REALLy hate sin taxes. Smokers die younger, have fewer of the oh-so expensive end-of-life years, cost less as a result and yet still are social pariahs who have the privilege of paying extra taxes and extra for health insurance. Fair how?

Smokers may die younger, but the way they die is more expensive than living longer (years of respiratory illness). Also, smokers cause collateral damage through secondary smoke inhalation. You can call it a sin tax, but another term is "disincentive tax".

Actually NE Journal of Medicine says that mass smoking cessation would increase total health care costs in long run. So not sure the logic for the disincentives, other than paternalism run amok.

"If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs."

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199710093371506

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

#137

Post by tossracct12467 »

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…

I think this undersells the social good Google is doing today.

They designed, built, and maintain top shelf software products that are powering the world. They're giving them away for free. And unlike their competitors, they're not limited to running on Google platforms.

Tensorflow, Go, Android, Angular, Dart, Kuberbetes, Chromium are some of the most well known.

https://developers.google.com/open-source/projects

A decade ago this would have been an expensive suite of tools out of reach of the majority. You'd need staff dedicated to dealing with licensing from Oracle, MS, Adobe and the rest.

So they have to play the politics game. In particular with this administration, they either do it or run the risk of being labeled an enemy of Trump. We've seen how he plays favorites and makes decisions based on the last person he talked to.

If Google doesn't, the last people he talks to about tech would be Oracle and MS reps.

In conclusion, this simple black and white view is naive and harmful. It lacks reflection on the reality of how the world works. It omits complexity and opines for a fantasy.

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

#138

Post by dang »

tossracct12467 wrote: post #137
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…

I think this undersells the social good Google is doing today. They designed, built, and maintain top shelf software products that are powering the world. They're giving them away for free. And unlike their competitors, they're not limited to running on Google platforms. Tensorflow, Go, Android, Angular, Dart, Kuberbetes, Chromium are some of the most well known. https://developers.google.com/open-source/projects A d…

Please don't create many obscure throwaway accounts; we ban those. HN is a community. Anonymity is fine, but users should have some consistent identity that other users can relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be an entirely different forum.

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

#139

Post by MaxfordAndSons »

redial wrote: post #119
twblalock wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I hope so too. Even if corporations really were sincerely pursuing social progress, that would be bad. In a democratic society, social progress should not be determined by a small group of unaccountable organizations. Say what you will about governments pursuing socia…

Laws make corporations accountable. Social "progress" is (should be) not the domain of the government but of everyone.

They could be made accountable in theory, but in practice they are held to much lower standards of accountability than either the government or individual persons.

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

#140

Post by dekhn »

crgt wrote: post #136
dekhn wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smokers may die younger, but the way they die is more expensive than living longer (years of respiratory illness). Also, smokers cause collateral damage through secondary smoke inhalation. You can call it a sin tax, but another term is "disincentive tax".

Actually NE Journal of Medicine says that mass smoking cessation would increase total health care costs in long run. So not sure the logic for the disincentives, other than paternalism run amok. "If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs." http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM1997100…

Are you cherry-picking studies to support your beliefs? Because you should click through to the letters to the editor in response to the article: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199802123380713

The responses raise legitimate concerns about the article's analysis, and they also support my assertion (which continues to be the mainstream view of the costs of smoking-related health-care). For example, the analysis you cited ignores secondhand smoke health costs entirely and ignores a number of conditions associated with smoking. In the author's reply to the criticism, they paper over these concerns in an inadequate way.

Post reply on HN