Where in the World Is Larry Page? • Hacker News Board

Re: Where in the World Is Larry Page?

#141

Post by Retric » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 4:04 PM UTC

RIMR wrote: post #119

Retric wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practice, Lobbyists write these laws. Passage or non-passage is less important than content.

Politicians are the ones that introduce these laws, and these companies answer to the people, not just to lobbyists. You seem pretty consistently dismissive of the democratic process in this thread. I don't think I should have to remind you of how critically important it is.

I am not saying these things are pointless, just that the value is different than what you're suggesting.

Sound bytes are an important part of the democratic process. Politions need to differentiate themselves from the pack by standing on one side or the other of any given issue otherwise the general public would be voting randomly.

Re: Where in the World Is Larry Page?

#142

Post by ibejoeb » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 4:04 PM UTC

Jerry2 wrote: post #136

Larry Page probably didn't attend the Senate hearings because he knew that this video was going to get leaked: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-googl... He would have been grilled for hours over it.

That video is amazing. Certainly doesn't hurt Damore's suit.

edit: To all the silent salties out there: am I wrong?

Re: Where in the World Is Larry Page?

#143

Post by ballenf » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 4:05 PM UTC

dibstern wrote: post #73

agoodthrowaway wrote: post #56

From a PR point of view Google has handled this whole privacy debacle very well. By keeping a very low profile on privacy, they’ve made sure Facebook takes the heat. Facebook’s horrendous management of the issue has also allowed Google to slide under the radar on the topic. Generally I think Page is doing the right thing by keeping a low public profile.

Not showing up here was the opposite of keeping a low profile though.

It's really not, because showing up at such a high-profile event makes it nearly impossible to return to obscurity. There are too many legitimate follow up issues that are impossible to ignore. Especially if something comes out later that is even a tiny bit in conflict with the testimony.

If this were chess, Page sacrificed a pawn for critical board control/position. It hurt, but Google is playing the long game.

Re: Where in the World Is Larry Page?

#144

Post by jonathanstrange » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 4:06 PM UTC

l9k wrote: post #81

At this point, though, such a public-relations strategy feels dated. On balance, the celebrity of even the most caricatured CEO (Zuckerberg) appears to be a net positive for his company. I disagree totally with that point. The "superstar CEO" Zuckerberg is now ridiculed, hated, and negatively "meme-ed". He is now the face of censorship (for some) and a laissezfaire strategy threatening democracies (for others). Even…

I'm always amazed about the amount of hatred directed at anyone who is in the public spotlight. There is a whole Internet mob out there, and it doesn't even matter where the fame comes from. If you're prominent in any way it seems that the best option is to seclude yourself and avoid the public. At least that's what I would do, I guess it's a personal preference in the end.

Re: Where in the World Is Larry Page?

#145

Post by puzzle » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 4:09 PM UTC

dahdum wrote: post #126

kyrra wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kent Walker has been at Google since 2006, has testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee before[0], and just knows a lot about Google. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/01/fo...

Yes, but only promoted recently, and has more of an advisory role than a leadership one. Certainly a talented guy, but not comparable to Sandberg or Dorsey.

You have no idea. Whether it's about GDPR, the Google Books lawsuit, surveillance reform, relationships with China or whatever else the policy issue of the day might be, Kent Walker was involved. He's not a leader? He has hundreds of people under him. Your "only promoted recently" makes it sound like he's a small potato. He's been around for a long time. When Google wasn't even born, at Netscape he gave JWZ the bad news about Microsoft and bad-attitude in the antitrust lawsuit (https://www.jwz.org/gruntle/rbarip.html).

Source: I used to work at Google. I would have asked Kent a policy question well before Larry or Sergey.

Re: Where in the World Is Larry Page?

#146

Post by wybiral » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 4:11 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #135

wybiral wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or... It's done in public to keep the public informed as to what issues they're looking at and help us follow along because transparency is a useful component in democracy? Just because a tiny amount of grandstanding happens doesn't make it all mock/show. Full disclosure, you're a Googler.

Your first paragraph would be spot on if there were only a tiny amount of grandstanding. The majority of questions at every hearing I've seen have been politically biased grandstanding, with the goal of creating a soundbite that appeals to the base, not of factually informing the public.

Which Intelligence Committee hearings are you talking about? I linked to a recent one in a grandparent post that has almost no grandstanding as far as I'm concerned and for the IC that's usually how it is. I can't speak for the larger committees with more media attention.

Re: Where in the World Is Larry Page?

#147

Post by ballenf » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 4:12 PM UTC

RIMR wrote: post #109

l9k wrote: post #81

At this point, though, such a public-relations strategy feels dated. On balance, the celebrity of even the most caricatured CEO (Zuckerberg) appears to be a net positive for his company. I disagree totally with that point. The "superstar CEO" Zuckerberg is now ridiculed, hated, and negatively "meme-ed". He is now the face of censorship (for some) and a laissezfaire strategy threatening democracies (for others). Even…

The real loss is Senators no longer trusting Alphabet/Google after this snub. You really don't want to turn the government against you.

Half of Congress is the House (and 80% by head count). They kind of enjoy seeing Senators get snubbed, since Senators so often personify the stereotype of arrogance.

Re: Where in the World Is Larry Page?

#148

Post by fullshark » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 4:13 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #87

l9k wrote: post #81

At this point, though, such a public-relations strategy feels dated. On balance, the celebrity of even the most caricatured CEO (Zuckerberg) appears to be a net positive for his company. I disagree totally with that point. The "superstar CEO" Zuckerberg is now ridiculed, hated, and negatively "meme-ed". He is now the face of censorship (for some) and a laissezfaire strategy threatening democracies (for others). Even…

> Page staying in the dark only generated this one article Eh, it’s going to generate nasty side effects. Google spends a lot on lobbying. This kneecaps those efforts. That’s bad news for a host of broader issues, including net neutrality.

When has public attention ever been beneficial for corporate lobbying efforts?

Re: Where in the World Is Larry Page?

#149

Post by nostrademons » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 4:14 PM UTC

dahdum wrote: post #126

kyrra wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kent Walker has been at Google since 2006, has testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee before[0], and just knows a lot about Google. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/01/fo...

Yes, but only promoted recently, and has more of an advisory role than a leadership one. Certainly a talented guy, but not comparable to Sandberg or Dorsey.

Kent Walker had a leadership role back when I was hired at Google, which was nearly a decade ago. Titles don't necessarily mean all that much - he's been handling high-level legal issues (including dealing with governments) for over a decade.

Re: Where in the World Is Larry Page?

#150

Post by ThomPete » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 4:14 PM UTC

This is why I more or less stopped reading or watching the news. If something is important I will find out. If I want to understand the world better I will either read a book about a given subject, ask someone who knows something, explore it on my own or debate it with someone who holds the opposite view of me.

News especially these days is mostly sensationalist gossip made by people who's primary incentives is to get you to click their link or share it because you are outraged so they get more clicks.

I don't mind debating politics or other more problematic subjects but I don't get riled up by some article trying to paint the world in black and white, seen the other side of how the media is reporting something too many times.

If you want to have another example besides this weird can completely forced article look no further to the Elon Musk interview on Joe Rogan last which made their shares drop 8% for the day because he took one puff. Everyone went berserk because you are not supposed to do something like that if you are the CEO of a large company. Instead of actually listening to the interview which was almost 3 hours and super interesting, that puff became what the media took away from it. The media is no longer in the service of the people it's in the service of the clicks that's about it because it's much more fun to be outraged and gossip than to actually try and understand.

Each to their own of course but that's why I stopped following the news cycles. Now go and watch that great interview with Elon and while you are at it go watch Peter Thiel on Dave Rubin an equally great show that takes the time to unfold subjects even if that means three hour formats.