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

201–210 of 378 posts

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

#201

Post by pg_bot »

akira2501 wrote: post #192
pg_bot wrote: post #27

This "broad pattern of unaccountable decision making", also called permissionless innovation, is the reason why America has a culture of innovation. For those unaware, the United States runs on what I call "Air Bud rules", named for this scene from the children's movie.[0] To summarize, as long as there isn't a rule forbidding you from doing something, you can do it. While I applaud his personal stance on refusing to…

> Don't give me any bullshit excuses for continuing Then don't act as if this is sufficient reasoning. Any one of these people or the entire department could quit, and you and I both know it would be re-staffed inside of a month. > named for this scene from the children's movie. Which should be a strong hint as to it's merit in the real-world. You shouldn't have to look very deeply into our society to see where the p…

If you knowingly engage or are an accessory to bad behavior, you are a bad person. Another person potentially replacing you does not absolve you of your actions. This defense didn't work in Nuremberg, and it won't work with me.

A concept so simple that a child could understand it is fundamentally sound.

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

#202

Post by 2stop »

stcredzero wrote: post #178
y4mi wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> carbohydrates Are you doing that on purpose? I don't know if the keto diet is healthy, but making a statement like that is.. pretty much guranteed to step on somebody's toes.

I don't know if the keto diet is healthy, but making a statement like that is.. pretty much guranteed to step on somebody's toes. Even if you don't consume any carbohydrates, your body will produce some to continue its processes. So it will step on someone's toes only if they're science ignorant. EDIT: Carbohydrates are used throughout your body. One example: as receptors on your cell membranes. The guff about "keton…

Off topic, and likely you are just trolling. But: Ketones are not carbs. The body does not need carbs.

Your analogy is incorrect

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

#203

Post by TACIXAT »

blub wrote: post #144
TACIXAT wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The search engine requires users to log in to use its search features and tracks user's locations. It shares user's history with a Chinese partner. All searches would be connected to a personal phone number and user movements, along with the IP address of the device they used, would be recorded. How is this at all different from the US version?

In the US you don't get disappeared for your searches (yet).

You kind of do though. [1] The government sends national security letters to tech companies all the time. Interest in certain topics can land you on lists. [2] The US absolutely intercepts anything they can in plain text (and does their best to break the encryption on things that aren't).

1. https://www.zdnet.com/article/top-374-keywords-the-u-s-gover...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XKeyscore

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

#204

Post by beaner »

akiselev wrote: post #117
beaner wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's true, it says to me that governments should put a blanket block on doing certain types of business with that specific country. Such a block should apply to all companies equally. It doesn't require them to be more involved in decisions from within the companies.

Why though? We draw lines about what is legally acceptable or not all the time, often with little more guidance than subjective morality filtered through elected representation. There is a vast difference between Hugo Boss making Nazi uniforms and IBM selling them high tech machines designed to increase the efficiency of their extermination.

I'm not sure what you mean. I agree that there is a difference. So there should be a law blocking the 2nd type of activity. The lack of a law is implicit moral approval of the American people.

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

#205

Post by 394549 »

tensor wrote: post #42
gunnihinn wrote: post #28

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?

> 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.

Stopping your analysis at legality/illegality is morally bankrupt. Local laws can be explicit tools of oppression and malice, and I would say its very controversial for western companies to follow such laws in authoritarian countries like China.

For an utterly obvious example of why this is true: look at Nazi Germany. Everything it did was in compliance with its local laws, but now many of its actions are universally considered crimes against humanity. Foreign companies and individuals that collaborated with it on those crimes are not excused by those laws.

> Do you want your companies to be extensions of US foreign policy?

I want them to be extensions of some basic liberal values, not agents of profit uber alles. For instance, I applaud European pharmaceutical companies for refusing to sell the anesthetics used for lethal injection to the US states that use them for executions.

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

#206

Post by derf_ »

akira2501 wrote: post #186
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 monopo…

> > 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?

There's actually a name for laws that target one individual while ignoring others guilty of the same behavior, and that's a "bill of attainder" [0]. They're banned by the US Constitution and also every state constitution, which might give you some idea that there are pretty good reasons "why not" (namely, that they're ripe for abuse, they violate someone's right to due process, and can be used by the legislature to take on judicial or executive functions, violating the separation of powers).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

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

#207

Post by 394549 »

stale2002 wrote: post #96
tensor wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ext…

> 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.

Godwin's law has been repealed: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/06/19/27874178/godwins...

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

#208

Post by Aunche »

sctb wrote: post #179
Aunche wrote: post #40

Yet another white American who thinks that thinks that their personal moral grievances are more important than a billion Chinese people gaining access to Google. This is even worse than men telling women that abortion is evil because at least men can claim to speak for the fetus. I've yet to hear a convincing argument that Dragonfly make the lives of Chinese dissidents any worse, let alone regular residents.

Please don't repost flagged comments. Hacker News isn't a place for tenacious ideological battle. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Fair enough. I didn't notice the previous comment was flagged and didn't receive any explanation. I'll express my point in a different way in the future.

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

#209

Post by notfromhere »

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.

Not really. Many US markets are so concentrated that there are a handful of companies participating, and frequently these companies collude on policies.

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

#210

Post by darpa_escapee »

derf_ wrote: post #206
akira2501 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 monopo…

> > 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? There's actually a name for laws that target one individual while ignoring others guilty of the same behavior, and that's a "bill of attainder" [0]. They're banned by the US Constitution and also every…

These standards don't only apply to Google, though. They can be applied to anyone, which makes your comparison bills of attainder seem kind of odd.
Post reply on HN