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

441–450 of 481 posts

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

#441

Post by occultist_throw »

otakucode wrote: post #312
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…

It's weird in a larger historical sense, but in a contemporary sense not so much. The US has moved radically rightward since the 1980s, and that only got kicked into higher gear since 9/11/2001 once 'patriotism' or 'security' could be tapped any time to shut down critics. It's not just a difference of opinion when you can claim it's some sort of existential threat. From my perspective, it looks like we're in some res…

> Suggesting such a socialist solution back then would elicit discussion. Nothing of the sort can be discussed today. One whisper of the word 'socialism' is followed by 'communism' and all discussion is aggressively ended.

Indeed. That's because the specter of "Communism", aka Dictatorship was the eventual downfall of Marx's idea of Capitalism->Violent Overthrow->Dictatorship->Stateless and Classless Communism. The problem has always been, that when people get power, they don't want to relinquish it. Therefore, all Marxian applications of Communism end in this failure mode.

There are other ways to apply Communism. I type this on a Communal Operating System. Linux. There are no gulags of forced developers making all the code I use to type this. It's all voluntary, and free for all to use and partake. The only rule is to respect the community- in that if you use code, it has to be under the same license.

I could see a Benefit Corp do something similar - taking the ideas of ownership and lock them in a public trust. That way, people know what they're "buying into", but it's also not the prior forced dictator knowing what's 'right'. The Story of Manna by Marshall Brain puts this idea eloquently in his short short.

Perhaps it's time to quit using the word "Communism" because, frankly, Marx guessed wrong and tens of millions died in furtherance of that specific ideal. But the underlying ideas that we are stronger together is something that many of us understand. But it all has to do with preserving the individuals' and the groups rights. And, that's a hard balance to keep.

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

#442

Post by peteretep »

intended wrote: post #418
cromwellian wrote: post #395

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…

    > Its the market at work
Sounds like an example of Market Failure

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

#443

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

jgmjgm wrote: post #410
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

And by "fairly" you mean literally any business tactic which does not rely on the government?

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

#444

Post by rapind »

jondubois wrote: post #426
redm wrote: 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…

I like most Google products but I think that Gmail is the wost email client that was ever created. The default way in which it groups emails is terrible: 1. They have three tabs for emails, so to check if I have any new emails, I literally have to click through 3 different tabs. 2. When I have long email threads, new emails get lost under the clutter instead of showing up at the top of my inbox like a rational human…

1. Agreed it's a horrible design. Luckily you can turn tabs off and go back to a normal inbox.

3. This IMO is good design and you can expand all (although I almost never need to do so myself).

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

#445

Post by startupdiscuss »

cromwellian wrote: post #428
TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 typ…

The world isn't black and white. The fact that large companies have to engage in lobbying because they are either threatened into it by unscrupulous politicians, or they are attacked by their competition by using the state for regulatory capture, doesn't make them all the same. The problem that technolibertarians/utopians have long had was that they imagined cyberspace as a completely separate dimension, that would n…

This is not to disagree (or agree) with any of the points you made. It is more of a side note:

Tech -- including "energy tech" -- has one important distinction from other industries: there are potential technological solutions that can move faster than the legislation.

For instance, the ISPs may seem to have won, but maybe some kind of wireless technology will bring true competition.

An energy company may have someone in the government, but Solar is already cheaper (batteries have to catch up), and behind the meter solutions are ever more popular.

Sometimes the legislation just fattens the target by staving off other competition.

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

#446

Post by londons_explore »

ben_jones wrote: post #298
redm wrote: 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…

People like to talk about the great employee environment, open source contributions, and philanthropic work of Google, but what projects will get cut when Google finally has a bad quarter? Is Google at it's core actually different - or is it more of the same, merely enjoying a circumstantial utopia period for its first two decades?

Google will sell off divisions before sacking staff I think.

In tech right now, if you fire any people, all the other good people will leave too.

Then you have a crowd of mediocre engineers and have no hope of competing in the future.

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

#447

Post by BearGoesChirp »

kbenson wrote: post #99
ebola1717 wrote: post #4

> “We are in the process of trying to expand our relationship with Google on some absolutely key points,” Ms. Slaughter wrote in an email to Mr. Lynn, urging him to “just THINK about how you are imperiling funding for others.” That was a real kicker for me. This seems like pretty blatant corporate censorship. Unfortunately, it's hard to make the public care about a situation like this that's so out of view.

It needn't be corporate censorship to have the exact same outcome. If Google is upset with an article, or thinks it's not fairly representing all sides, they are going to contact the organization and say so. They don't have to threaten removing funding, the indication that they were unhappy could have been impetus enough for Slaughter to act proactively. Even if Google was thinking of removing funding, there's nothin…

> there's nothing wrong with that either (they have the right to fund or not fund what they want)

There is a limit to this.

For example, I have the right to ask you for money. I have the right to report or not report a crime I saw you commit. But if I tie those two activities together, it becomes blackmail and is illegal, despite no single action being wrong on its own.

Google has a lot of power, and they are abusing it. It may not be illegal under current law, but they cannot hide behind the defense that each micro interaction is their right.

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

#448

Post by BearGoesChirp »

cisanti wrote: post #43

If U.S or E.U would want to break up Google, how would it realistically work? I hope we see that happening, the company has become a monster and can literally tell the world what to think and how to feel.

Immediate seizure with lethal force to any who resist. Same way they treat the average citizen who they think is involved in profiting off of illegal activity. I really with this happened more (there is at least one major bank that knowingly laundered drug money who should be fully seized). This should include any and all legal and PR assets, they'll be given a single public defender who will take on the case for them.

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

#449

Post by londons_explore »

sbov wrote: post #382
gaius wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fair point but I've not seen even a hint that Amazon themselves are tracking me across AWS hosted services. Do you have any evidence or links?

I'm pretty sure companies would not be happy if they found out Amazon was tracking those companies' customers. If it got out, it would probably be huge. Not worth it for Amazon to do this.

The only practical way to do such tracking reliably would be to inject html into every page loaded from one of their CDN's. That would be visible to everyone, and they don't do this.

Hence, either they have fairly ineffective IP address based tracking, or no tracking at all.

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

#450

Post by scott00 »

chaostheory wrote: post #348
scott00 wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The leaders of most public companies are indeed influenced by analysts and investors. The reason is because the leaders of most publicly traded companies can be fired by the board, and the board's perception of leader performance is influenced by analyst opinions and the opinions of large and/or influential shareholders. In Google's case, Larry and Sergey hire and fire the board, not the other way around. There is a meaningful difference between the corporate governance dynamics at Google and most other public companies.
Post reply on HN