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

401–410 of 481 posts

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

#401

Post by Jerry2 »

jstandard wrote: post #339
Jerry2 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I haven't noticed heavy censorship. Who do you think is doing the censoring and how are they accomplishing it? Are there a few specific examples you can point to where that's happening?

Check out this story for example:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15136918

It was censored by HN admins as a dupe.Even thought it's different from the other Google story about firing of a critic.

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

#402

Post by [deleted] »

clarkmoody wrote: post #392
taurath wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations have moved left in part because they realize that they've won already with the Right. The Right hates government so much they will never vote for anyone with more government control. I sometimes think thats why corporations have moved more left on social issues, so you can have the NeoLiberal globalists overshadowing the workers-rights left.

> The Right hates government so much I'm not sure which Right you're talking about. Perhaps on taxes & redistribution the right doesn't like the government, but they will always support expansion of the military and police. And many politicians (on both sides, unfortunately) never saw a war they didn't like, because it brings home those sweet, sweet procurement contracts.

[deleted]

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

#403

Post by jerf »

rhizome wrote: post #254
jerf wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, as others have pointed out, it's not hard to read "think tank" as "pr firm". You ought to love the amount of money the $POLITICAL_ALIGNMENT_YOU_HATE spends on "think tanks"; they consume vast piles of money and to a first approximation accomplish absolutely nothing. (A bit closer look and I wouldn't say they are completely achievement-free, but it's still a terrible way to spend money.)

Well, as others have pointed out, it's not hard to read "think tank" as "pr firm". Sure, but it raises the question why there's a separate "think tank" term, even more why think tanks refer to themselves as such.

Oh, that's easy; neither they nor the people donating to them want to think of them as pr firms. Think Tanks are so much more, you know, Think Tanky. I think such wonderful, glorious thoughts that people pay me just to think of these things, and write them down. That's way better than being in grubby PR. That's, like, a middle class job. This is a real job, that's, like, hard & shit, and I'm uniquely qualified on account of the rare and distinguished quality of my thoughts.

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

#404

Post by FridgeSeal »

visarga wrote: post #325
quickben wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then you have Bill Gates going: this year, I'm going to eradicate disease X from the planet for all humanity because I have the money. That's altruism. Research into self driving cars, on a closed platform, is a PR move.

> Research into self driving cars, on a closed platform, is a PR move. Google has the largest contribution in advancing the state of the art in AI. That benefits humanity in many ways, SD cars being just one of them. They are also working on healthcare, robotics and reasoning agents. All these things will be a boon for humanity. Discoveries are discussed in the open.

Yes that's true, but that doesn't mean they're being performed with ulterior motives.

Whilst we can appreciate the benefits that have been brought forth, we shouldn't be blind to consequences both short and long term and potentially hidden. A very blunt and hyperbolic analogy is giving infection ridden blankets to indigenous populations in the depths of winter.

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

#405

Post by [deleted] »

ep103 wrote: post #286
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…

That was the norm up until IIRC reagan, Bush 1. The reason we switched off of it, was around that time, the idea was the allow more consolidation at the expense of competition. The rationale was that the American marketplace was already significantly competitive, to the point that market growth was labor constrained, as opposed to today, where it is capital constrained. So by allowing more merges and decreasing overa…

[deleted]

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

#406

Post by ghthor »

emmelaich wrote: post #374
visarga wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, I never thought of antitrust as a scale, or that it should adapt to the state of the economy. I just thought monopolies are bad.

Monopolies are bad but "perfect competition only exists at the point of collapse" [1] A benevolent monopoly can be OK but both of the extremes of competition come with instability. [1] I put that in quotes because I thought it was a famous well-known quote but I can't find the original!

I think the 51% attack of bitcoin is a similar phenomenon. If someone owns 51% of the market, trust from outsiders/customers is basically destroyed. At that point the dominate player can systematicly destroy the competition through pure economic power.

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

#407

Post by closeparen »

taurath wrote: post #376
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…

Corporations have moved left in part because they realize that they've won already with the Right. The Right hates government so much they will never vote for anyone with more government control. I sometimes think thats why corporations have moved more left on social issues, so you can have the NeoLiberal globalists overshadowing the workers-rights left.

You've made a very interesting delineation between globalism and workers' rights. I'm guessing that by "workers," you mean "workers who were born in the correct country."

Globalization is great news for many people in the category of "workers," just not those in high-cost-of-living countries.

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

#408

Post by thinkloop »

hwillis wrote: post #230
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 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…

It's complicated in a global economy. Our companies are competing against massive corporations in China, India, Russia, not just against each other. It makes sense for local things like telcos, but less so across the board.

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

#409

Post by WillPostForFood »

r00fus wrote: post #250
WillPostForFood wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-A aren't out sending hundreds of millions financing think tanks and lobbyists in Washington, they are just trying to run their own business with their own agenda. And the scale of the companies are orders of magnitude smaller than Google, both are medium sized family owned businesses.

Clearly this is just "business" [1]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/28/hobby-lobby-...

It is ok not to like Hobby Lobby or their owners, but explain how you think that is relevant to "corporations pushing an agenda."

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

#410

Post by jgmjgm »

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?

Anti-trust laws are about leveraging your monopoly in one area of the economy in order to gain an advantage in another.

There is nothing wrong with having a monopoly per se as long as it was gained and maintained fairly.

Post reply on HN