Google Critic Ousted from Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant • Hacker News Board

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

#451

Post by yazan94 » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 1:33 PM UTC

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…

> Maybe Gmail has a setting to display emails correctly (like Yahoo) but I haven't heard about it.

There is. I ended up setting up my Gmail where unread and read emails are in separate accordion-like sections. The 3 tabs thing makes for horrible UX

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

#452

Post by ajarmst » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 1:43 PM UTC

The only evidence given that the firing was due to pressure from Google is Lynn's statement (which seems to just be his assumption, because he's a critic of Google). There are at least two official statements that it was in fact not Google's pressure.

I don't think Google is an any more moral actor than any other corporation, but why would they do something like this, which has basically nothing but downside to them? Despite Lynn's fantasies, I doubt that Google is particularly worried about his voice of criticism, nor stupid enough to think this would silence him.

Shouldn't the "disgruntled employee dismissed for cause" theory, which has at least as much evidence as the "lonely voice of criticism silenced by corporate behemoth", be at least entertained?

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

#453

Post by imtringued » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 1:44 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #438

intended wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 It's economics, sure. I don't know what qualifies as a "market" here, though. There aren't standard shares of "lobbying" that people buy and sell.

Any market in which a company sells products. If lobbying is a cost effective way to increase revenue then it's almost guaranteed that at least one company will engage in lobbying. The companies that don't lobby fall behind in competitiveness and sometimes shutdown and therefore leave the market in which they were selling goods.

If you are interested in investing in lobbying then all you need to do is buy shares in companies that engage in lobbying.

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

#454

Post by sageikosa » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 1:46 PM UTC

ajarmst wrote: post #452

The only evidence given that the firing was due to pressure from Google is Lynn's statement (which seems to just be his assumption, because he's a critic of Google). There are at least two official statements that it was in fact not Google's pressure. I don't think Google is an any more moral actor than any other corporation, but why would they do something like this, which has basically nothing but downside to them?…

He's not silenced, they just took away the podium that says "sponsored by Google".

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

#455

Post by sageikosa » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 1:57 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #438

intended wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 It's economics, sure. I don't know what qualifies as a "market" here, though. There aren't standard shares of "lobbying" that people buy and sell.

You're thinking investment markets, not philanthropic giving markets. Any think tank is competitively attempting to gain funds to stay afloat. Some do this by lobbying for grants, some by soliciting private donations. But there's a finite amount of capacity to fund think tanks regardless of the source of income.

Google can certainly find other think tanks they like better.

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

#456

Post by logfromblammo » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 2:36 PM UTC

alexanderstears wrote: post #398

logfromblammo wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 su…

Many people think a monopolist could provide the lowest possible prices. However, anyone who thinks a monopolist would provide the most consumer surplus has an opinion that's at odds with the consensus.

Wow. That's a really polite and diplomatic way to describe "completely crazy". I might just re-use that wording myself.

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

#457

Post by humanrebar » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 2:55 PM UTC

sageikosa wrote: post #455

humanrebar wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Its the market at work It's economics, sure. I don't know what qualifies as a "market" here, though. There aren't standard shares of "lobbying" that people buy and sell.

You're thinking investment markets, not philanthropic giving markets. Any think tank is competitively attempting to gain funds to stay afloat. Some do this by lobbying for grants, some by soliciting private donations. But there's a finite amount of capacity to fund think tanks regardless of the source of income. Google can certainly find other think tanks they like better.

I can get behind this description. Though it does mean that even the most communist and/or totalitarian governments have internal markets if source-agnostic-budget counts. I'm not sure how people with an anti-capitalist ideological bent would respond to that framing.

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

#458

Post by belorn » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 3:08 PM UTC

afsina wrote: post #437

belorn wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

monopolies and a free market is a oxymoron because at that point the monopoly has become a authority that intervene in the forces of supply and demand. Such authority can exist without government, and given enough capital and positioning it can be very stable. In history we can find examples of companies that through pure size and weight can solely influence the forces of supply and demand, with no need to get help f…

No, What I said is, monopolies can exist for a short time in a free-market system. But they live much longer in state controlled-restricted markets. And I doubt there is any example in History a real monopoly lived as long as patent expiration time (no, Standard oil was not a monopoly.) even in a "mostly" free market economy. Examine the Phoebus cartel for an example. Patents are indefensible in my eyes after witness…

monopolies in a free-market system is an authority. One can claim that they should expire faster or exist with less frequencies, but an authority is an authority, and with it it can exert pressure on what would be a balance between supply and demand.

If we look far enough into the past, large enough monopolies are indistinguishable from governments. The Hanseatic League had their own armies, their own laws and even their own cities. Under their rule they fully controlled supply and demand, including price, which no longer makes it a free-market system. Still, they aren't what we define as a state (definitions...).

Taxation don't violate a free market. A free market need laws, which in turn require police and military, which in turn need to be paid (which distributes money). If everyone has to have their own police, military and laws, everyone becomes small islands of states. Those states then violate the supply-demand market, and thus you no longer have a free market.

There is no free lunch here. One can try to redefine what a free market is, what socialism is, what a state is, what a authority is, what taxation is, what interferences is, but it will just ends up arguing definitions.

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

#459

Post by tripzilch » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 3:14 PM UTC

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…

You can disable the tab thing in your first point. I did that almost as soon as it rolled out. No idea where the setting for that is though (I suppose somewhere in the gmail settings screen).

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

#460

Post by jstandard » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 3:19 PM UTC

Jerry2 wrote: post #401

jstandard wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The content of that story and especially the HN discussion of that story was 95% similar to an already much larger and very active discussion on HN about the New York Times version of that story. In case you missed it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15131370

The WaPo article adds nothing materially new to a conversation about Open Markets and Barry Lynn's firing.

Dozens of stories daily are marked as dupes to keep related conversations under one roof. I completely support marking the WaPo story as dupe and directing folks to the NYT discussion.