Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

breitbart.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 486 posts

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#11

Post by jsoc815 »

dang wrote: post #9
jsoc815 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't think it's allowed. I just tried to post it only to learn that someone else also tried; post is dead. Not surprised, but think it's a little weird because the leaking of the video seems like a point for discussion of something happening in the company, SV, etc., maybe? Maybe Dang (or someone other minder) will be kind enough to explain.

That site has been banned on HN for years. We're happy to make exceptions for specific cases where there's a substantive post, though, like this one.

Ah, thanks for explaining.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#12

Post by dragonwriter »

itbeho wrote: post #5
jsoc815 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't think it's allowed. I just tried to post it only to learn that someone else also tried; post is dead. Not surprised, but think it's a little weird because the leaking of the video seems like a point for discussion of something happening in the company, SV, etc., maybe? Maybe Dang (or someone other minder) will be kind enough to explain.

It’s worthy of a discussion in my mind. There are a few articles in the news this week about Google trying to influence the election in Clinton’s favor. And yet she still lost. Perhaps Google isn’t as influential as they think? That being said, Google executives are not elected representatives of the American people and they subvert the voter’s will at the risk of regulation that will likely be worse for them and the…

> That being said, Google executives are not elected representatives of the American people and they subvert the voter’s will at the risk of regulation that will likely be worse for them and their customers.

Google executives and Google as such have the Constitutionally protected right to attempt to influence elections by lawful means, and regulatory retaliation for such activism is exactly what the First Amendment exists to protect against.

(It's kind of ironic that the people arguing that Google should be regulated for advocating against the current administration and the Party behind it often think that the rules preventing churches from retaining their tax-code subsidy while actively campaigning for candidates should be abolished, as they assume those would be likely, on balance, to advocate for that party.)

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#13

Post by savethefuture »

dang wrote: post #9
jsoc815 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't think it's allowed. I just tried to post it only to learn that someone else also tried; post is dead. Not surprised, but think it's a little weird because the leaking of the video seems like a point for discussion of something happening in the company, SV, etc., maybe? Maybe Dang (or someone other minder) will be kind enough to explain.

That site has been banned on HN for years. We're happy to make exceptions for specific cases where there's a substantive post, though, like this one.

Good exception. Off-topic: Is there a list of banned websites and is it public?

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#14

Post by ihatethem »

dang wrote: post #9
jsoc815 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't think it's allowed. I just tried to post it only to learn that someone else also tried; post is dead. Not surprised, but think it's a little weird because the leaking of the video seems like a point for discussion of something happening in the company, SV, etc., maybe? Maybe Dang (or someone other minder) will be kind enough to explain.

That site has been banned on HN for years. We're happy to make exceptions for specific cases where there's a substantive post, though, like this one.

I don't see how private citizens discussing their political views is "substantive", there is nothing remotely controversial in that footage, this is just fodder for partisans.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#15

Post by mrschwabe »

For additional context, also note Eric Schmidt's consultant role which was revealed in HRC's leaked emails:

https://qz.com/823922/eric-schmidt-played-a-crucial-role-in-...

https://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-emails-google-eric...

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/37262

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#16

Post by dang »

savethefuture wrote: post #13
dang wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That site has been banned on HN for years. We're happy to make exceptions for specific cases where there's a substantive post, though, like this one.

Good exception. Off-topic: Is there a list of banned websites and is it public?

Yes. Well, a hashtable.

It's not public, but it wouldn't be hard to approximate from public data.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#17

Post by dang »

ihatethem wrote: post #14
dang wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That site has been banned on HN for years. We're happy to make exceptions for specific cases where there's a substantive post, though, like this one.

I don't see how private citizens discussing their political views is "substantive", there is nothing remotely controversial in that footage, this is just fodder for partisans.

You've repeatedly created accounts with a propaganda agenda for Google. You've been doing it for years. We've banned you before, and I've banned this account. Doing this is abusive regardless of what company you're promoting or what your motive is.

Would you please stop? HN is for curious humans to exchange thoughts in community. Few things undermine curiosity or community more. We frequently ask users not to accuse each other of astroturfing or shilling without evidence, but when we do find evidence—and there's a lot of it in this case—we go from tolerant to severe pretty quickly.

(All: this is not about the thread topic, politics, or Google in general—only a malignant kind of forum abuse. I hesitate to post it in an already-controversial thread, but the data are so clear that I decided not to wait.)

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#18

Post by ocdtrekkie »

tcbawo wrote: post #6

Is it really surprising that a multinational company would have a preferred candidate? Although, I'm sure they lobbied extensively for all major candidates. It is interesting that both major parties seem to want to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to free speech, "common carrier", and antitrust issues.

Corporations seem like they have a comical level of hypocrisy, until you realize that corporations are in it for the money, and will almost always take the most profitable position for them in any given debate.

For instance, you will see strong calls to regulate businesses they have to interact with, while actively fighting against regulation of themselves, even on the same issues.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#19

Post by mikeyouse »

mrschwabe wrote: post #15

For additional context, also note Eric Schmidt's consultant role which was revealed in HRC's leaked emails: https://qz.com/823922/eric-schmidt-played-a-crucial-role-in-... https://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-emails-google-eric... https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/37262

There was essentially no new news in the hacked emails -- People had been reporting for years that Schmidt was supporting HRC's presidential bid, including forming a startup to help her with engineering talent:

https://qz.com/520652/groundwork-eric-schmidt-startup-workin...

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#20

Post by jiojfdsal3 »

"(00:54:33) An employee asks what Google is going to do about “misinformation” and “fake news” shared by “low-information voters.” Pichai responds by stating that “investments in machine learning and AI” are a “big opportunity” to fix the problem."

Anyone find this disturbing? They're trying to use AI to manipulate what users 'should' see?

Post reply on HN