171–180 of 481 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google's motto was never "do no evil". Previously, it was "don't be evil".
> Google's motto was never "do no evil". Previously, it was "don't be evil" They should probably use a motto that derives from Dungeons and Dragons' lawful/neutral/chaotic good/neutral/evil alignment system, just so we can be sure. Google would be lawful evil whereas Uber would be chaotic evil.
Obligatory Taleb comment: "Think tanks are natural lobbies w/a facade of "research" Their cover allows them to censor dissent from monoculture" https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/902859415375798274 OT: I'm curious how many hours will this post survive on the front page
Not long. HN heavily censors any criticism of Google and yet any blog post from one of the official Google sites stays on the front page for a whole day.
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…
This is the price for being a public C-corp. There are very few people in history who can withstand the short term mob mentality of shareholders - in my mind only Jobs, Bezos, and Musk could do it... and survive. (imo Not even Bill Gates or Edison could do it) Maybe for other companies this can be mitigated by becoming a B-corp instead i.e public benefit company
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…
The article doesn't even say that Schmidt called for the guy's head. It seems to have been the Foundation's decision. That's arguably a spineless move, but then again it's probably in their interest.
And what, exactly, would be ethically wrong about stopping funding for an institution you no longer agree with? After all, every single donation to charity is based on the principle that those giving agree with the organisations' aims. If the ACLU started a large campaign arguing for the extinction of puppies, would I be ethically wrong to quit?
If you want research isolated from such pressures, your best bet happens to be government, by the way. There are layers upon layers of isolation between the funding decision and actual scientists that, apart from the occasional right-wing propaganda misrepresenting individual projects, you're measured by the only yardstick that should count: how many papers you get into high impact journals.
The author tells the story of seeing Shukang stand up in front of the entire prison and refuse to "confess his crimes" -- and was summarily spat on and beaten to near death by a group of party zealots. Tortured this way for three more days, Shukang hanged himself on the fourth day after writing characters on the wall, among which -- "The victims of the Great Leap Forward will live forever in the hearts of the people!"
We must not forget the victims of the past, and we must remember that we are less than two generations removed from men being killed simply for telling the truth when the facts do not align with political convenience. The intolerance of dissenting voices and contradictory information is a dangerous slippery slope on the fall from a free and healthy society.
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…
Google proved that all you need is a colorful logo and a stupid catch phrase ("Don't be evil") to get people to treat you as an infallible, altruistic entity - regardless of the fact that your actions tell a completely different story.
Like Apple, Google has become a religion for their fans. As with all religions, inconvenient facts are dutifully ignored by members of the Holy Order of Goog. I find the worship of corporations even more difficult to grasp than Scientology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
1. "money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust"
2."something that serves to induce or influence"
Eric Schmidt spending millions to create groundwork isn't a favor? You think Google wasn't trying to influence the Obama white house during those 427 visits?
from wikileaks
"He’s ready to fund, advise recruit talent, etc. He was more deferential on structure than I expected. Wasn’t pushing to run through one of his existing firms. Clearly wants to be head outside advisor, but didn’t seem like he wanted to push others out. Clearly wants to get going. He’s still in DC tomorrow and would like to meet with you if you are in DC in the afternoon. I think it’s worth doing"
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…
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…
Quote the relevant parts so people can see how hyperbolic you're being.
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…
> 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.
I would say Shmidt's agenda is more neo-liberal than progressive. Not that I endorse it, but corporations pushing an agenda is not new[1] and not limited to the left[2][3], so not even conservative media will stand in their way either since that has been happening for a long time on the right.
1. http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/12/12338/shilling-profit-ca...
2. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hobby-lobby-wins-contraceptiv...
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_...