Live data from Hacker News

Google Critic Ousted from Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant

nytimes.com

411–420 of 481 posts

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

#411

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!

And excessive competition creates stagnation at local maxima. If you're engaged in a price war you have no profits to invest in R&D.

One of the things that works really well for this is to split monolithic national regulatory codes into less complicated region-specific ones.

California needs earthquake rules, Florida needs hurricane rules, Colorado needs altitude rules, etc. If you have one national code containing all the rules, you give the advantage to huge conglomerates that can navigate them all at the same time. A small company in Colorado has to comply with all the irrelevant rules covering earthquakes and hurricanes, which puts them out of business.

But if they each have only their own regulations, smaller companies can survive the ones in their home state -- and have more power there to address them if they're oppressive. So you get a different company in each region instead of one big national one. They put competitive pressure on each other because any who charged too much would make it worth it for one of the others to pay the regulatory cost of expanding into that region, but not so much pressure that everyone is locked in a price war and no one has any surplus to invest in the future.

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

#412
post #286

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…

It may have been accelerated by the fear of global multinationals besting American firms. NTT, Deutsche Bank, Siemens, RDShell, etc. American firms were being challenged by bigger international firms --and WTO/NAFTA encouraged firms to get bigger and compete overseas rather than just protect the home country from foreign competition as it had been up to that point.

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

#413
post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Where are these praise Google for its liberalism stories? Prior to Trumpism and the breakdown of modern politics, the only time I really heard people talking about how wonderful it was that Google was liberal was the occasional fluff piece about their solar programs. So where are the stories of senators saying, "those guys at Google, they're what we should be striving for." As opposed to senators raking them over the…

[deleted]

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

#414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not sure in what market is Google a monopoly? Searches, for one, internet video as well... If the trend continues, web browsers as well (Chrome is fast approaching the level of usage share as IE at its peak).

Those aren't products. Google's main products are advertising and user data. They can't be monopolists in markets they're not even participating in.

Google doesn't participate in the search engine market. Got it. Makes perfect sense.

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

#415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this not equally a problem with the establishment right in the United States? They aren't being a genuine, credible anti-corporate voice either. Or do they get off the hook because we just assume that there's no chance they would ever be that?

I consider myself pretty decently to the left, and from my perspective the difference is that the establishment left feigns to be for the people, while still being 100% for corporations. So in a sense, I consider it "false advertising" if that makes sense, when voters vote left, they get something they didn't actually want.

That's some false dilemma nonsense. There are ranges of corporate pandering from the left, anywhere from near 0 to almost entirely. Part of the problem is you have to buy elections for the most part, and in order to do that you have to make promises.

We have a broken system and refusing to play the game may get you a Senatorship in Vermont, but not much else.

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

#416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't ask what's so progressive about censorship, but why have progressives seemingly embraced it? or at least distanced themselves from a more firm defense of free speech.

Which progressives have embraced censorship?

https://qz.com/1053957/charlottesville-neo-nazis-and-the-cas...

I think this article is a good encapsulation of the progressive ambivalence on free speech, which has provided a rationale for violence against speakers like Charles Murray (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/middleb...), the violent protests that have followed Milo Yiannopoulos, and "safe spaces" on college campuses.

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

#417
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 may be that multinationals long ago exceeded soveign states as dominant political powers. As in the days of the East India Company.

So it's not a question of reigning them in, that horse has bolted.

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

#418

I think Google's lobbying overall is the result of being punished early on by regulatory capture of competitors. Look at the threats: * Microsoft funded number backroom whisper campaigns in DC ( http://www.businessinsider.com/what-an-anti-google-whisper-c... ) * Microsoft and Oracle funded their own Astroturf lobbying groups and think tanks, to tie up the company in lawsuits and investigations (e.g. FairSearch) * Ora…

This is the key reason.

Its the market at work - at some point the marginal advantage of investing even a little in lobbying results in more X, (where X can be anything from power to profit).

And in a competitive scenario, SOMEONE will do it.

Not to mention Even a unhappy incumbent can initiate a lobbying strategy.

People in the comments seem to focus a lot on google itself, but this is the way the game is played.

Its just that tech is realizing that they can't create utopia because the laws of complex systems still apply.

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

#419
post #93

The key point of the article is this: “Google is very aggressive in throwing its money around Washington and Brussels, and then pulling the strings,” Mr. Lynn said. “People are so afraid of Google now.” Honestly, the only thing shocking about any of this is that people thought Google was "special". The reality is, when its revenues are threatened, it's going to reach like any other corporation, which it should. Googl…

In what way are you locked into maps? Are you using that phrase to mean you're unable to switch or just that you like the product too much to switch?

I have ditched google almost entirely. The only two google services I use are search (via duckduckgo bang encrypted searches) and maps. Honestly...OpenStreetMap and Apple Maps simply do not compare. It is very hard to not use Google Maps. I also use Waze but it is my understanding that the two are of the same. Even so, I prefer to use Google Maps.

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

#420

I think Google's lobbying overall is the result of being punished early on by regulatory capture of competitors. Look at the threats: * Microsoft funded number backroom whisper campaigns in DC ( http://www.businessinsider.com/what-an-anti-google-whisper-c... ) * Microsoft and Oracle funded their own Astroturf lobbying groups and think tanks, to tie up the company in lawsuits and investigations (e.g. FairSearch) * Ora…

This is the key reason. Its the market at work - at some point the marginal advantage of investing even a little in lobbying results in more X, (where X can be anything from power to profit). And in a competitive scenario, SOMEONE will do it. Not to mention Even a unhappy incumbent can initiate a lobbying strategy. People in the comments seem to focus a lot on google itself, but this is the way the game is played. It…

> People in the comments seem to focus a lot on google itself, but this is the way the game is played.

Just because something is commonly done does not mean that behavior is right. A reason this post is so popular is because people are becoming increasingly aware of the power & capital concentration occurring in this country.

Google has for years successfully gave an image of a company capable of rising above the typical sociopathic behavior of other large multinational corporations, and this story helps expose Google for what they really are: just another large corporation.

Post reply on HN