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

341–350 of 481 posts

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

#341

Post by metaphorm »

kbenson wrote: post #324
metaphorm wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not a very convincing argument to quote the dictionary at someone who is clearly trying to make a more sophisticated point about political and cultural attitudes w.r.t influence peddling and interaction of money and politics.

The supporting evidence of their argument was two separate items, that Eric Schmidt set up a data company for the sole purpose of getting Hillary elected, which is entirely unsupported by the reference they provided, and that Google visited the white house a lot, which while supported has nothing to do with bribery when taken by itself. I took "depending on your definition of bribery" to be implying that these visits…

quite a lot of perfectly legal behavior, that would not be called misconduct by a prosecutor or investigator, can still be on shaky ethical grounds for various reasons.

surely Google does not visit the white house just because they enjoy the breakfast buffet. they're lobbying for their business interests. this isn't necessarily unethical at all, but when you look at the pattern of campaign contributions and think tank funding (and various other kinds of pulling of influence levers) you start to find the grey area.

I probably wouldn't go so far as to call it bribery, but it's not a clear cut thing. I'm nearly certain that is why the poster said "depending on your definition of bribery". He/she was (in my interpretation) intending to discuss that grey area. Shutting down that discussion by throwing the dictionary at him/her is both rude and unhelpful. There might really be an interesting discussion of ethical grey areas in political lobbying activities to be had, but not if you're gonna shut it down with that kind of reactionary literalism.

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

#342

Post by kobeya »

root_axis wrote: post #283
rhizome wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's condescending to plainly try to change the topic to what the poster thinks the issue "really is." As a bald assertion, it's threadshitting.

Whether or not it's condescending, it's not "destroying open discourse", that's absurd hyperbole.

I said destroying a platform for open discourse, not what you quoted, and I'll stand by what I said. After a certain noise threshold is reached the platform becomes unusable. I've seen this happen on other sites, sometimes purposefully as a way to influence public opinion but shutting down certain topics.

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

#343

Post by astrodust »

ryanx435 wrote: post #257
astrodust wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was not aware that 2000 people starved to death at Google.

Way to miss the forest for the trees in the analogy. Google is removing people that have views that differ from the progressive narrative. It's not just about Google, it's about people who hold progressive beliefs seem to think that it is ok to remove people who express differing opinions. There is a large number of politicians who hold progressive beliefs. The Google incident can be interpreted as a warning that pro…

> Google is removing people that have views that differ from the progressive narrative.

Good for them. If you don't like the culture nobody's holding you there at gunpoint and forcing you to work. This isn't China under Mao. It's a free market economy.

> The Google incident can be interpreted as a warning that progressive politicians would remove citizens that express differing opinions if they could.

A private company is not the government. First amendment is still intact and nobody is suggesting otherwise. Save your panic for actual threats.

You really need to open your filter bubble.

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

#344

Post by kobeya »

root_axis wrote: post #292
abiox wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well... they were speaking to a behavior. It's a bit murky whether `dislike for changing the subject` is accurately or usefully reduced to `castigating someone else's opinion`.

It is their opinion that the OP's concerns are overshadowed by larger concerns, that's not "changing the subject", it's a disagreement about where priorities should be directed with respect to the events discussed in the article, the subject remains unchanged. It's like someone saying "the senate always votes to raise its own pay whenever republicans are in power!" and someone else replying "they only raised it to ma…

It is literally changing the subject. Even supposing the new topic is more important, and priorities were misallocated, the topic is still being changed.

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

#345

Post by 2muchcoffeeman »

DannyBee wrote: post #147
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.

Whatever may be happening now, this is super-revisionist history. Google fought a large number of very lonely fights in the early dates, all in the name of consumers, the industry, and doing the right thing. It took a very large number of lumps and made a lot of enemies for doing so, but did it anyway. I was there, in the DC office, working next to the policy director (I started the engineering side when he started t…

I don't think your experience contradicts my comment. At the time, they thought that was something worthwhile for them to do. They definitely did a lot of things that helped their reputation in the past. Google could do no wrong. Then their priorities changed and they did different things.

I'd be wrong if Google actually went out of their way and did things that were contrary to their business interests.

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

#346

Post by kobeya »

mmirate wrote: post #259
kobeya wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't have any trouble choosing not to buy Echo/Alexis/whatever.

Yet. First it will be extra features and conveniences to miss; after some time (cheaper hardware etc etc) it will become feasible that all nontrivial Amazon interactions must go through Alexa.

Alexa is never going to reach the market penetration necessary for that to be plausible.

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

#347

Post by fasquoika »

wavefunction wrote: post #317
fasquoika wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Occupy Wall Street wasn't that long ago, most of those people are still around, and the message definitely creeps into the mainstream regularly. Just look at how many people voted for Sanders in the primaries last year

Bernie Sanders isn't anti-corporation, he just doesn't think they should have as much power and influence in our society as they currently do. It's a benign argument. I wonder why his opponents hyperventilate and exaggerate his positions...

Er, I supported Bernie Sanders... Don't know why you would think I was an opponent

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

#348

Post by chaostheory »

scott00 wrote: post #300
chaostheory wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but is Google's motto still "don't be evil"? They may be able to potentially wield a big stick, but what's its use when they'll never use it and push back? they've been strong armed by Wall St to the point where they've kowtow enough to drastically change Google in not so great ways. In their defense, very few people can do better

Why do you think Wall Street strong armed them into dropping the motto? Isn't it more likely that the people in charge simply changed their minds about the best way to run the company? And, given the lack of formal control, what mechanism did Wall Street use?

Are most leaders of publicly traded companies immune from wall st analyst quarterly estimates and projections? Do they not greatly affect the company's share price?

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

#349

Post by logfromblammo »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #297
hwillis wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's one anti-corporate idea that I've always thought was interesting but AFAIK isn't discussed by anyone: small-corporation libertarianism. In general libertarians are too concerned with government but almost all of them (plus neoliberals and many financially conservative folks) can agree that competition is at least one of their most important economic tenants. Competition is balanced against economies of scale…

Well on the left they get silenced when they get too loud (evidenced by the post) I'd bet the same happens on the right. Lots of the biggest funders of libertarian think-tanks are also big corporate donors or individuals who made it rich on the back of a big corporation so I'd expect what happened to Barry and his group here is liable to happen to libertarians of the same mindset. >all of them (plus neoliberals and m…

Er... I'm not sure why anyone would believe that monopoly could provide a lower price. The only problem a monopoly solves is whether the good or service is to be continuously available in the market or not.

You might allow a monopoly if the alternative is periods of competition interleaved with periods where there are no firms left in the market at all. If you choose to grant a monopoly, prices will be higher, and supply more constrained, but the good or service will always be available to the highest bidders. You're never going to get a lower price out of one, unless the owners are impossibly altruistic.

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

#350

Post by [deleted] »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #337
belovedeagle wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> should be split up It may be weird that no one is arguing that (maybe it's just no one you're listening to, or being allowed to listen to, though?), but it's not weird that it's not libertarians. The notion that some people shouldn't be allowed to form voluntary associations with others because they got "too large" is anti-libertarian. That said, "libertarianism" and "anarcho-capitalism" are becoming too synonymous…

>All hope is not lost, however: there is reason to believe that these monopolies derive much of their monopolistic power through the state How has google derived monopolistic power through the state?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN