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

Google Critic Ousted from Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 481 posts

Re: Google Critic Ousted from Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant

#131

Post by saalweachter »

CPLX wrote: post #15

This isn't a problem with Google, it's a problem with the establishment left in the United States. There's no genuine, credible anti-corporate voice in American politics. The reasons why are many, but of course they typically distill down to the incredible power of money to influence people, of which this is an example. The side-effects of there being no credible labor party in our political system manifests, in part…

Well, yeah. There's no substantial anti-corporate voting bloc.

Most substantial voting blocs are pro- something. Pro-union, pro-environmental, and pro-privacy voters may support positions which some corporations oppose, but the voters themselves aren't by-and-large anti-corporation; as long as corporations behave they don't have any problem with them.

Re: Google Critic Ousted from Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant

#132

Post by ionised »

debacle wrote: post #100
2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google was never good. They only ever did what they thought fit their strategy at the time, to allow them to grow and make more money.

That's revisionist and silly.

Seems perfectly accurate to me.

They are no different than any other company and claiming that they are somehow exceptional is what seems silly in my opinion.

Re: Google Critic Ousted from Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant

#134

Post by BeetleB »

There is really very little content in this article. It reads like a classic case of "Write an essay in N words" and you find yourself finishing at M The whole premise is a bit flawed - it's putting most of the blame on Google. When an "independent" organization takes on average $1M/yr from any entity, and structure themselves such that losing that money is a big concern, then they've played an equal role in this mess.

It's almost as if the article is trying to make it Google's obligation to continue funding, which is a ridiculous proposition in itself.

>This year, it has donated to 170 such groups, according to Google’s voluntary disclosures on Google’s website. While Google does not indicate how much cash was donated, the number of beneficiaries has grown exponentially since it started disclosing its donations in 2010, when it gave to 45 groups.

I could equally well call it linear. Two data points does not an exponential growth make.

Re: Google Critic Ousted from Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant

#135

Post by euyyn »

derping69 wrote: post #75
throwaway0071 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> bribe anyone in their way Do you have a source for this claim?

Eric Schmidt set up a data company for the sole purpose of getting Hillary elected. Google also had 427 white house visits during the Obama Admin. Not sure what your definition of bribe is but they are as tight with DC as any wall street bank https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/googles-remarkably-close...

> Not sure what your definition of bribe is

lol

Re: Google Critic Ousted from Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant

#136

Post by ocdtrekkie »

seanf wrote: post #81
ktta wrote: post #23

Is there any way one can find the list of organizations that Google (aka Alphabet) has been funding? Annual investor reports?

https://www.google.com/publicpolicy/transparency.html

Google's NetPAC is kinda amazing, as a thing, I'm still stunned our political system allows something that just straight up feels like money laundering. (From a "we need to route this money through someone else so it is legal" standpoint.) This isn't a thing unique to Google, it's just a thing that amazes me is considered okay.

Corporations can't directly give money to candidates, but Google pays it's employees, who 'donate' it to NetPAC, which is a Google-controlled entity which can give money to candidates.

Re: Google Critic Ousted from Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant

#137

Post by corporateslave3 »

freehunter wrote: post #112
blfr wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, Trump was completely outspent by Clinton and won. Money follows the likely winner and this weird political betting market usually gets it right. It's also hard to say that he served the GOP. It very much looked like the elephant reluctantly did what Trump told it to do. Second, Trump campaigned on lowering immigration and tariffs, by far the most anti-corporate policies American president supported in the livi…

The 2016 election is a extreme outlier for many reasons, so it's difficult to look at it and make any meaningful conclusions in this regard.

Outlier with regards to what? It was an exposure of the extreme discontent bubbling under the surface in America. If anything, it was completely rational. The election did not happen in a vacuum and it was not random. I personally believe that it was just the start of things to come in America and shows cracks in the status quo.

Re: Google Critic Ousted from Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant

#138

Post by corporateslave3 »

eighthnate wrote: post #117
blfr wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, Trump was completely outspent by Clinton and won. Money follows the likely winner and this weird political betting market usually gets it right. It's also hard to say that he served the GOP. It very much looked like the elephant reluctantly did what Trump told it to do. Second, Trump campaigned on lowering immigration and tariffs, by far the most anti-corporate policies American president supported in the livi…

That's why I wrote : "Hillary was probably even more pro-corporations/neo-liberalism than trump. But democrats will argue that hillary cared about the lowly workers." > Second, Trump campaigned on lowering immigration and tariffs, by far the most anti-corporate policies American president supported in the living memory. Sure. If a NY billionaire is the "most anti-corporate" president, then does that prove what I'm sa…

Trump was:

Anti globalization in all of its manifestations (immigration, tariffs, taxes, trade)

That was what he ran on. How can you say he was pro corporation?

Re: Google Critic Ousted from Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant

#139

Post by foota »

gonmf wrote: post #59
ktta wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, these sort of situations (creating dependence) are very hard to pick apart and point out who is at fault. Say an organization 'A' funds another organization 'B' (maybe non-profit, maybe not), and over time 'B' becomes very dependent on the donations they are getting from 'A'. Then say they start to have a conflict of interest, and 'A' drops funding(which probably kills 'B'). Who's the bad guy here? How…

It's a simple issue, bar entities that should not have conflicts of interest from accepting gifts/investment/etc that could create a conflict of interest. It is appalling how US senators are allowed to receive gifts or be compensated in creative ways by companies.

Afaik, us senators can't. Their campaigns can.

Re: Google Critic Ousted from Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant

#140

Post by lbeltrame »

gonmf wrote: post #59
ktta wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, these sort of situations (creating dependence) are very hard to pick apart and point out who is at fault. Say an organization 'A' funds another organization 'B' (maybe non-profit, maybe not), and over time 'B' becomes very dependent on the donations they are getting from 'A'. Then say they start to have a conflict of interest, and 'A' drops funding(which probably kills 'B'). Who's the bad guy here? How…

It's a simple issue, bar entities that should not have conflicts of interest from accepting gifts/investment/etc that could create a conflict of interest. It is appalling how US senators are allowed to receive gifts or be compensated in creative ways by companies.

Or you can limit the percentage of funds you can get from certain types of entities in order to reduce or prevent dependence. My current employer (a research no profit) has this limitation in its basic rules
Post reply on HN