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

181–190 of 486 posts

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

#181

Post by akhilcacharya »

mikeyouse wrote: post #19
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...

He’s been a notable Democratic donor for a while - he even invited Obama to a talk at Google and asked him about how to sort a billion integers.

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

#182

Post by [deleted] »

0x8BADF00D wrote: post #119
caffeinewriter wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's an alternate mirror as well. [link removed] Edit: I'm removing my own copy, since I just realized I didn't set up a contact for that site, and I'd rather play it safe than sorry. Others have mirrored it, and one's on YouTube at present: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5gPdrlyc84

Why hasn’t anyone hosted it on YouTube yet? Serious question.

[deleted]

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

#183

Post by cthulha »

simula67 wrote: post #77
fallingfrog wrote: post #60

Wait, you mean there's bias in our media? All joking aside- I remember watching ed Snowden go from being a "whistleblower" to a "leaker" in the space of 8 hours. I watched Alexandria ocasio Cortez go from a bold new voice to being portrayed as a know-nothing (in a pretty sexist way) in about 6 hours. I remember how all the media were creaming themselves with excitement over the wmd's they were going to find in Iraq.…

> Alexandria ocasio Cortes go from a bold new voice to being portrayed as a know-nothing (in a pretty sexist way) in about 6 hours Are you kidding ? She said US military was given $700 billion increase that they didn't ask for. She said that US unemployment is low becuase everyone has two jobs. She said ICE has to detain 34,000 people every night by law. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/alexandria-ocasio-co...…

Who wants to tell simula67 about Trump's relationship to reality?

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

#184

Post by rdtsc »

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.

> Is it really surprising that a multinational company would have a preferred candidate?

Not really. Google lobbies the government more than Verizon, Wall St. banks and defense contractors. We don't usually mind cause they lobby for the things we care about as well.

However we could also see how perhaps Eric Schmidt, ex-CEO and at that time Executive Chairman, walking about at a Hillary Clinton's event with a staff badge might make things a bit too obvious:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxbUJoZWEAAzp04.jpg

But perhaps Google isn't partisan enough? I think it is the superficial "we are not biased and all opinions are welcome" type message clashing with their existing bias, that's bothering people. I think they should be bolder even and say, we are biased, we support these values.

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

#185

Post by imustbeevil »

jiojfdsal3 wrote: post #31
imustbeevil wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've used the internet long enough to not want to spend another second reading a lie someone wrote a news article about.

I didn't have to read the article. I just watched the leaked video with my own eyes in its entirety.

You misunderstood. I'm responding to the idea that we wouldn't want to filter the aggregation of content on the internet. I overwhelmingly disagree that an unfiltered stream of everything everyone wants to say is the only way to consume that content. As in the example I gave, I would rather have a robot determine whether someone is lying before that content gets to me.

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

#186

Post by rdtsc »

dmitrygr wrote: post #93

I have no comment on the content of this, since I don't want to get fired for saying anything remotely close to what I think. I am kind of curious how this video was obtained however.

It is interesting that you've been downvoted (as your post is gray when I saw it), just for questioning that you might face repercussions for adding a comment. Which kind of proves your point I suppose.

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

#188

Post by axlprose »

fzeroracer wrote: post #178
axlprose wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you claim you're politically neutral if you are not willing to listen to people who deny climate change? If you're literally not willing to listen to any arguments for/against a hypothesis at all, then sure, you're likely more invested in the political aspect than the science itself. But if you're just arguing in favor of what the majority of the established literature suggests, then no, because being pro-scien…

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the debate works. We're not talking about two rational individuals forming a debate in good faith where they're able to change each other's opinion. We're talking about people latching themselves to an anti-empirical evidence, anti-scientific approach to things such as climate change or vaccinations. The debate becomes political when there's enough people and pol…

> Yet when we talk about an environment needing to be politically neutral, then their opinion must be treated with equal weight.

No, that is absolutely not how science works. There's a reason why scientists undergo a peer review process to publish papers, and why journals have an "impact factor" score: it's because they're not all equal, and it takes an incredibly long time to become established as credible inside of academia.

If you're referring to the casual layman bickering that happens in the peanut gallery surrounding certain scientific results, then sure, all kinds of people with ulterior motives jump on those kinds of bandwagons and flamewars. But the scientific process itself does not (or at least tries not to) work that way, thus serving as a counterpoint to the idea that "everything is political".

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

#189

Post by geofft »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #161

Wow, they are still using Dory. That is the question collecting software that Taliver Heath wrote. It was a pretty brilliant idea, people submit questions and other people vote the questions up (or down) and top ranked questions get selected automatically. Its interesting to think about Brietbart putting this out there as some 'evil' thing, given what their all hands meeting would have looked like if the election had…

> But from a tech perspective its always destabilizing to endorse a political ideology just like it is destabilizing to endorse a religious ideology in what is a collective for economic output.

Is it destabilizing at all? The British Empire, one of the world's most economically successful projects, had its own religious ideology. The US has a "Protestant work ethic." When have we historically seen the adoption of religion as destabilizing?

It might be wrong, sure, but I don't think we have evidence to conclude that it's unprofitable.

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

#190

Post by [deleted] »

adventured wrote: post #116
peterwwillis wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What media organization on this planet doesn't make decisions about what users should and shouldn't see? Breitbart does it, The New York Times does it, your local news channels do it. Google as a news broker is literally just showing you what Google wants to show you. I don't know why you'd think they wouldn't have a bias, or filter their output based on it. All media does.

None of those is a fraction as powerful as Google, which is an $800 billion goliath with multiple hyper entrenched monopolies. Those monopolies entirely change the equation and expectations. Search, Android, YouTube. All three of those are either monopolies or close to it. YouTube by itself is worth a solid 20 times what the NY Times is. Breitbart is maybe worth $100m, a top 100 US Web site with a couple million read…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN