Live data from Hacker News

Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

nytimes.com

91–100 of 378 posts

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#91
post #7

I actually applaud Poulson for leaving Google in protest of Google's Chinese business practices. Having mentioned that, I think I have to part ways with him when he implies that the correct way to "fix" this is to have the government come in and make these sorts of business decisions for the company. I don't believe in the government obliging businesses to do things. Especially when it looks like this whole thing is…

While I'm not a fan, this is the crux of the Charles Koch book "Good Profit." In short, government oversight / over-reach quickly becomes a game of favoritism and distorted markets. Like it or not, it's hard to argue with that theory.

Not really: "When companies become too large it quickly becomes a game of anti-competitive actions and distorted markets"

Companies dont have our interests in mind any more than the government, but we can vote the government out.

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#92
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You still need to grow by more than the dividend or you will erode share price over time. Nobody invests $100 into a company so that a year from now it is $100, even if they get a couple $2.50 checks throughout the year on top of that.

> You still need to grow by more than the dividend or you will erode share price over time No you don't. Imagine a company that has a share price of 100$. And this company makes 10$ in profit, per share, and returns that 10$ in profits to shareholders every year in perpetuity. Thats a 10% rate of return that investors would be happy to accept in perpetuity. People accept this deal all the time. Usually they are calle…

People accept that deal when they have a very strong guarantee that their $100 will still be worth $100 at the end of the term. Combining the low yields of bonds (let's be honest, your numbers are chosen for their roundness, not their realism) with the low safety of stocks is the worst of both worlds.

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#93
post #76
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah right, "following the laws", because discussions of morality can be reduced to whether it "follows the law" or not? No, that's absurd. Google is objectively abetting an authoritarian regime and providing it with extremely useful tools to maintain and strengthen totalitarian control over 1.4 billion people, and this is wrong.

Objectively, Google is extending its services to a billion people while maintaining the status quo of censorship. Stopping Google from expanding to China is basically another form of censorship, which is wrong.

It’s not obviously wrong, nor is it objectively the same product since the censorship and surveillance makes it very different. It makes it a tool of control.

Governments routinely regulate exports as matter of policy. Lockheed would very much like to sell Taiwan (or really anyone and everyone) F-35s, but as a matter of government policy, it’s not allowed to, as it runs counter to the policies of the American government. This maybe censorship in a broad sense, but it certainly doesn’t make it prima facie wrong.

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#94
post #7

I actually applaud Poulson for leaving Google in protest of Google's Chinese business practices. Having mentioned that, I think I have to part ways with him when he implies that the correct way to "fix" this is to have the government come in and make these sorts of business decisions for the company. I don't believe in the government obliging businesses to do things. Especially when it looks like this whole thing is…

It basically has to be the government forcing them, because otherwise companies (and their lawyers) will just fall back on "Well, we're following the local laws and not doing anything illegal in our home jurisdiction."

You already see that kind of weasily justification here all the time[0]: "Companies are soulless machines that exist only to make money, they should do whatever they're legally allowed to do."

The only response to this kind of moral nihilism is legislation.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18079027

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#95
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Do you want your companies to be extensions of US foreign policy?" No but it would be nice if they at least upheld the same values of the country that they themselves are a product of. Or are values just things you can draw arbitrary borders around when it's convenient?

What are laws besides a culture's values written down in the form of rules? I'm only being mildly pedantic here. Obviously, there are some silly laws that don't work here; I'm talking about the large obvious ones that everyone knows about.

>"What are laws besides a culture's values written down in the form of rules?"

Do you really believe that's true when a country has had only a single political party since 1949?

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#96
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once government gets involved and starts playing favorites, everything gets messed up. OK. Is it more or less messed up than that a private corporation can and is willing to perform surveillance on foreign citizens on behalf of those citizens' government that would be unacceptable anywhere else?

A company complying with the laws of the country it does business in seems fairly uncontroversial to me, even if you may not agree with those laws. Do you want your companies to be extensions of US foreign policy?

Lots of governments do terrible things, and people condemn those governments all the time for it.

And people have been condemning companies for working for those governments as well.

If you want to look at some history, I will unfortunately have to invoke godwins law, by using the example of IBM, which everyone condemns now for working with the Nazis.

So to answer your question, I am happy to have companies be an extension of US foriegn policy, in cases where the US foreign policy is correct, and the other country is wrong.

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why the sudden concern over tech companies mining our habits? Advertisers have been doing it for years, using government funded research in military propaganda that made it's way into universities after WW2 as marketing and journalism programs. This rhetoric is something like "Kill this particular witch!" without questioning whether the belief we hold on how the world works is rational. EDIT: let me re-state: Why is…

I think after the last election, the moral panic du jour was aimed at tech companies. Russian hackers on Facebook, clickbait...it's all lead to this. And the dialog is manufactured to make Google a villain. I'm not sure who the bigger villain is here: Google, or whoever wants to cut them down.

You can see very clearly what's happening here. The evidence is out in the open. There's a strong desire by the media and the government to control the tech companies because they all understand very clearly that they absolutely need Big Tech to survive.

On the media side we have an aggressive campaign by all the major media outlets against the tech company. Look at how many hit pieces about Facebook the NY Times have written in the last six months. I've noted this before [1] but in just this year the New York Times has written a constant stream of articles in which they accuse Facebook of destroying democracy, working with the Chinese, and collecting lots of "creepy" patents . This sort of targeted reporting against a single company that has, in fact, broken no actual laws is without precedent.

And absolutely none of these articles mention the extraordinary conflict of interest wherein Facebook is the primary driver of NYTimes readers and advertising.

And this is just one particular case. I don't think anybody has done the quantitative analysis yet but I suspect if you did gather the numbers the last two years would reveal an exponential increase of anti-Facebook/Google/Twitter/etc articles. It's a propaganda campaign that I think rivals the full-court press the media ran to push the Iraq War.

And now we have these endless meetings and threats of anti-trust investigations from the government. Every week brings a new meeting or some new initiative or a draft executive order. It's all bluster; nothing will come of it because the threats are the point.

The end game here is not to actually cut anybody down. The point here is to send a message. This is no different than what happens in China. The government doesn't need to use violence. Intimidate and threaten companies like Google and Facebook enough and they will fall in line. They will play ball.

And so the entire point of this exercise is the Media and the Government taking the gloves off and sending a clear message to certain Tech companies: WE CAN HURT YOU BACK.

* I say certain because this is not about money. Apple has all the money in the world. You don't see them being attacked though because Apple has little power. They make shiny widgets at the end of the day. Companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter are extremely powerful. They shape reality. It's a power which was previously only held by the Media and the Government and they really resent having these new Tech-Media fusions step on their turf.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17387438

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once government gets involved and starts playing favorites, everything gets messed up. OK. Is it more or less messed up than that a private corporation can and is willing to perform surveillance on foreign citizens on behalf of those citizens' government that would be unacceptable anywhere else?

If that's your stance, shouldn't it apply to every company[1][2][3] that is already engaging in this? What makes Google a target for litigation here? edit: Not saying that because other companies do something similar that Google should get carte-blanche, just trying to see what the differentiation is. 1: https://qz.com/990662/microsoft-released-a-new-version-of-wi... 2: https://www.engadget.com/2018/07/18/apple-iclou…

>What makes Google a target for litigation here?

Under laws that are selectively enforced, either drawing the ire of the ones in charge of enforcement or drawing the ire of the general public enough they pressure the ones in charge of enforcement to act. In either case, what draws ire could be actions largely unrelated to the laws themselves and may be based on actions that people generally would not support making illegal. This is a flaw with selective enforcement, and why I support ending selective enforcement.

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#99
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once government gets involved and starts playing favorites, everything gets messed up. OK. Is it more or less messed up than that a private corporation can and is willing to perform surveillance on foreign citizens on behalf of those citizens' government that would be unacceptable anywhere else?

A company complying with the laws of the country it does business in seems fairly uncontroversial to me, even if you may not agree with those laws. Do you want your companies to be extensions of US foreign policy?

Solid defense of Watson Business Machines you're making there.

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once government gets involved and starts playing favorites, everything gets messed up. OK. Is it more or less messed up than that a private corporation can and is willing to perform surveillance on foreign citizens on behalf of those citizens' government that would be unacceptable anywhere else?

If that's your stance, shouldn't it apply to every company[1][2][3] that is already engaging in this? What makes Google a target for litigation here? edit: Not saying that because other companies do something similar that Google should get carte-blanche, just trying to see what the differentiation is. 1: https://qz.com/990662/microsoft-released-a-new-version-of-wi... 2: https://www.engadget.com/2018/07/18/apple-iclou…

More directly:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2018/0...

(note that "tens of thousands of cameras throughout Xinjiang" is an error — that's tens of thousands in one county alone https://twitter.com/BenjaminDooley/status/104420148593903616...)

Post reply on HN