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

Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 378 posts

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

#181

Post by fixermark »

gunnihinn wrote: post #28
bilbo0s wrote: 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…

> 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?

Taken to the extreme, this question becomes "Do you want Snow Crash or 1984?"

But there's a whole sliding scale of space between the two, and the question of which tool to use when is the day-to-day meat of a livable and happy society.

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

#182

Post by jtwebman »

blub wrote: post #129
bilbo0s wrote: 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…

Saying "I don't believe in the government obliging businesses to do things." seems to me akin to not believing in gravity. The government - including the US government - is obliging all companies operating on its territory to do certain things. That's one of the roles of government.

Last time I checked China doesn't fall under US law. This is an international company. They can do what ever they want for a site in China. I don't agree with it but I do agree that the company can do it if they want.

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

#183

Post by toss1 »

coffeeonrollt wrote: post #132
toss1 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, YES, to the extent that the foreign policy is supporting & maintaining institutions & policies necessary for continued open democratic societies. By virtue of the US' historically strong support for open democracies (albeit often flawed or failed), and historical accident, it essentially now falls to the US to attempt to maintain it around the world. To the extent that we have failed to maintain and support…

With the amount of Chinese products being used in US and US support of countries who have violated human rights, your statement sounds hypocritical. US has interests and behaves to protect it, there is no morality in those decisions.

It would be if I supported it, but I am extremely against it (& yes, I did ack that US has been inconsistent/failed and was referring to supporting some anti-rights regimes).

The extensive use of Chinese products by the US will likely turn out to be a great geostrategic blunder of historic magnitude.

While the US companies and govt thinks they're exploiting cheap Chinese labor, China is strategically exploiting our myopic weakness for short-term profits to steal IP and gain global economic & military power.

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

#184

Post by oconnor663 »

xg15 wrote: post #157
oconnor663 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a hard line to draw. A tool that makes it easier to look at lots of footage, which happens to get used for garment enforcement, is that a "garment related tool"? How do we factor in the French government's intention to build its own garment related tools on top of a camera's general purpose interfaces? What if the camera company itself is in France, but it's _suppliers_ are in the US? My goal here is…

Hmm, what's worse, a single populist regulation, punishable by a moderate fine or total information control? Very hard to draw a line indeed...

I think you just put words in my mouth, which is difficult to respond to on the internet. Of course I agree with you about which is worse. Have you thought about how I can both agree with you and also believe that drawing the line is hard?

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

#185

Post by s73v3r_ »

Spooky23 wrote: post #146
andrepd wrote: 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.

Globalism is messy. The west, particularly the US made a policy decision years ago that engaging with China commercially would yield benefits to China, the US, and the world. Arguably that was correct, although the predictions that making money would create a democratic society proved to be inaccurate. If you wear men's undershirts, you're objectively abetting an authoritarian regime that allows companies in Banglade…

" Why should Google suffer"

1. I reject any notion that Google is somehow "suffering" if they don't go into China.

2. You're making it seem like Google is entitled to all the business it wants. That's not true in the least.

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

#186

Post by akira2501 »

bilbo0s wrote: 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…

> I don't believe in the government obliging businesses to do things.

Yea, but I'm a big fan of regulated food, clean water and pollution standards. Upholding your obligations is a requirement to receiving the protection of the government as you conduct your business. It's a two-way street.

> Especially when it looks like this whole thing is Google specific.

The better question is whether Google is acting as a monopoly in the regulated domain or not, if they are -- then this isn't a relevant factor.

> What about all the other American companies doing business in China?

We'll get to them eventually.. but why shouldn't we go after the biggest business first? Wouldn't that provide the greatest reduction in harm?

> Or would this be a government mandate of a broad based American pull out?

There are already plenty of laws which make transacting business in China more difficult for US based companies. It's not as if it's laissez faire except for Alphabet Inc.

> Once government gets involved and starts playing favorites

I don't disagree, but you haven't made a sufficient case that "favorites" are being played or that other factors aren't more prevalent.

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

#187

Post by izacus »

pishpash wrote: post #29

> “It should be pretty obvious that they should be asked what changed between 2010 and today,” said Cynthia Wong, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch. What changed is Android, Google is losing a lot more than search, I've heard Android phones don't even work properly there. Apple phones work though.

And Apple phones work because they gave iCloud keys to Chinese government (and became a trillion dollar company as a reward).

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

#188

Post by Rapzid »

bilbo0s wrote: 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…

I find it a little disturbing how we can have laws that stipulate how companies have to treat their workers and conduct their business but as soon as we start talking about ensuring what we consider "rights" are being taken care of overseas it's too far.

Not quite as disgusting as how we ended up with torture, including waterboarding, indefinite detainment, and a whole slew of fun activities in the early aughts that made great recruitment ammo. All under the sentiment of "Oh, well if they aren't Americans they don't have rights." Or "If they aren't on American soil they don't have rights".

There is a case to be made that the Bill of Rights is an extension of the "unalienable rights" mentioned in the deceleration of independence. That you can't take those away or give those to people. That the Bill of Rights simply enshrined and protected them, not provided them.

Maybe we should rename the Bill of Rights to "Bill of Perks for being in America" and retcon our founding principals. It's interesting seeing people who would probably consider themselves "libertarians" arguing against legal action protecting peoples liberties..

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

#189

Post by s73v3r_ »

PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #101
hobs wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Companies dont have our interests in mind any more than the government, but we can vote the government out. Companies are easier to not do business with. Governments only get voted out if enough people agreed to vote with you. Also, only one of these groups generally has the ability to use violence against you, and if the other group has that ability, it is only because the first allowed it to be delegated.

I don't see why any of that is relevant, though.

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

#190

Post by brainwad »

pixelbath wrote: post #36
ucaetano wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fundamental issue is the expectation that all public companies must keep growing and show profits quarter after quarter, year after year. This is obviously unsustainable. Hey, feel free to invest your retirement savings in a company that doesn't grow profits year after year, I'm sure you'll do great!

Not all companies exist solely as an investment vehicle.

They are literally government sanctioned investment vehicles. If they don't return profits to their owners, they are non-profits/charities, not corporations.
Post reply on HN