Google Critic Ousted from Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by kbenson » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 3:58 PM UTC

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

Well, if it's the actual definition[1], then you didn't exactly prove anything.

1: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bribe

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

#162

Post by freehunter » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 3:59 PM UTC

corporateslave3 wrote: post #137

freehunter wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not a professional statistician but basically the only thing I remember from my stats class in college is that if you have an extreme outlier, even if you think it might be indicative of future trends, you have to adjust for it. Just like electing a single black man after electing 43 white men as president was not an indicator that racism is over (since an openly racist man was elected following that) nor is it an indicator that minority groups are now going to be elected in higher numbers (since a white man was elected immediately after).

There's also the fact that Trump cannot actually be anti-corporate since he is a billionaire owner of a multi-national corporation. He is the definition of corporate because his name is literally a corporation.

And now to get political (so skip to the next paragraph if you don't want get into politics), there is the serious question about how much influence foreign nations had during the election. It's an open question whether or not Americans consciously elected Trump on his own merits, or if the propaganda from Russia swayed the vote enough to change the outcome. Then there are less well-sourced questions about hacking of the voter rolls, hacking of the voting machines, etc. I'm not sure if you've seen the news about how this guy is hiring a bunch of high-priced lawyers to investigate if the president actively colluded with a foreign power in order to win the election, but long story short, the president actively colluded with a foreign power in order to win the presidency.

And now I just read your username and realized you're the same guy who thinks Western Europe is failing because they're socialists and who has said Obamacare is literally Hitler, so god damn it why do I waste my time arguing with extreme right-wing trolls.

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

#163

Post by frgtpsswrdlame » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 3:59 PM UTC

specialist wrote: post #144

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…

"There's no genuine, credible anti-corporate voice in American politics." I note that you said "corporate" vs "capital(ism)". Thank you for making the distinction. Most liberals I hang with favor a Sander-esque version of capitalism meets socialism. Balancing capitalism (ready access to capital), competition, open markets with a strong safety net and democracy. Balancing rewarding achievement and merit with ensuring…

Check out the platform Zephyr Teachout/Tim Wu ran on. They were pretty close to you albeit without co-ops. Actually the whole Open Markets program which just got removed has some really good stuff in this vein. On youtube you can find several talks they've given (not sure how long they will last.)

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

#164

Post by mercer » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 3:59 PM UTC

kylestlb wrote: post #157

otakucode wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Schmidt was pretty clear in his book that he believes his business success is an indicator of virtue, and that he believes he should use Google and his wealth to intentionally seek to manipulate modern culture. It's a disturbing notion and I've never understood why people weren't more concerned about it. If every significant avenue of communication used by people is controlled and censored by a group, no matter who i…

As to your first paragraph, many companies and founders would say the the same thing, no? "We want to change the world by doing X (through their business)". Also, what other metric for success is there in the current culture of the USA other than business success? Not that I'm saying that's bad or good...

I think you're correct, but the scary thing in this case is that Google/Alphabet might actually be able to do it, for better and worse.

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

#165

Post by xienze » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 4:00 PM UTC

otakucode wrote: post #145

fowlerpower wrote: post #17

The thing is that Google has absolutely gone down questionable path from their early days. It is a little unfair to think this problem exists only within Google. Time and time again we are reminded why corporations will evolve to become as greedy and as protective of their turf expansive of their power and monopolistic as they can get, even if good people are running them. It is the system itself that does this, corp…

Schmidt was pretty clear in his book that he believes his business success is an indicator of virtue, and that he believes he should use Google and his wealth to intentionally seek to manipulate modern culture. It's a disturbing notion and I've never understood why people weren't more concerned about it. If every significant avenue of communication used by people is controlled and censored by a group, no matter who i…

> and that he believes he should use Google and his wealth to intentionally seek to manipulate modern culture. It's a disturbing notion and I've never understood why people weren't more concerned about it.

Because they're pushing the progressive agenda, so who in the media, government, or academia is going to stand in their way? As far as those parties are concerned, Google is doing what corporations "should" do.

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

#166

Post by soundwave106 » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 4:06 PM UTC

corporateslave3 wrote: post #138

eighthnate wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The interesting thing about Trump is that, in spite of what he ran on, quite a bit of Trump's advisor picks ended up being from the business, banking, or investment side of the equation. (Prominent examples include Rex Tillerson of Exxon; Steven Mnuchin of Goldman Sachs; and Wilbur Ross of Rothschild.)

It's hard to say that Trump is "pro corporation" though, because his cabinet also includes anti-globalization nationalists (most prominently Steve Bannon who is now gone, but there are others). The policy conflict between these groups (and others) actually has, in my opinion, been one of the strongest defining features of Trump's presidency so far.

I agree that Trump campaigned as an anti-corporate and (along with Sanders) showed that there is current popular discontent with the state of business in America.

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

#167

Post by rhcom2 » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 4:07 PM UTC

corporateslave3 wrote: post #138

eighthnate wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

He is also very pro-deregulation and anti-oversight.

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

#168

Post by davidmr » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 4:09 PM UTC

sfgjsdf wrote: post #88

davidmr wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comma in the second element allows—I would even say requires—one to separate elements of a list with semicolons. I don’t have a copy of the NYT Style Guide, but I just consulted my Chicago Style guide, and it is explicitly permitted. Grammarians have spoken!

You have to admit that it's a confusing sentence though!

I absolutely do. I probably would have worded it differently.

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

#169

Post by matt4077 » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 4:10 PM UTC

Chaebixi wrote: post #107

pgodzin wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google's still is "Don't be evil", Alphabet's is "Do the Right Thing"

> Alphabet's is "Do the Right Thing" For the shareholders, of course. Does anyone else even matter?

Isn't this, like, cynicism completely decoupled from reality? Google invests a lot of money and time in a myriad of projects with altruistic motivation. Google summer of code, $100 Million per year for non-profits, OSS releases such as tensorflow or Chrome, google.org and on and on.

Of course you can say that this is motivated by PR objectives. But then you're creating a situation where they couldn't do anything right.

Many of their regular products also straddle the border to altruism. Google Scholar doesn't seem to bring in much money, yet it's one of the most important tools for research. Electric, and self-drivings cars seem to be obvious wins for both the shareholder and humanity etc. etc.

They've also created the model for the modern workplace: rooted first and foremost in trusting people to do the right thing, and letting follow their interest to a degree previously only seen at Bell Labs and similar institutions of a lost era. And where Bell Labs was possible because Bell was raking an incredible amount of money, Google has turned the causality around: their free-wheeling embrace of creativity is seem the world 'round as a reason for their success.

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

#170

Post by CalChris » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 4:19 PM UTC

rpedela wrote: post #150

CalChris wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is Schmidt acting thru one of his private foundations. It is his money. This isn't Google.

Didn't the article say Google, not Schmidt, gave $21 million to the think tank?

I wasn't responding to the article. I was responding to fowlerpower's comment:

> The thing is that Google has absolutely gone down questionable path from their early days.

And as for the article, it says:

> The New America Foundation has received more than $21 million from Google; its parent company’s executive chairman, Eric Schmidt; and his family’s foundation since the think tank’s founding in 1999.

So yes, Google did contribute. But so did Schmidt and his family foundation. I think this is mostly on Schmidt personally rather than Google as a corporation.