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

221–230 of 378 posts

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

#221

Post by ddebernardy »

kodablah wrote: post #26
IBM wrote: post #6

Brian Acton or anyone else feeling guilty about their ad-tech wealth: use your winnings to lobby for a federal privacy bill that is as strong and comprehensive as GDPR (and other EU privacy regulations). The industry is moving to enact something that maintains the status quo [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/26/technology/tech-industry-...

Or don't use your winnings for lobbying for new laws heaped on everyone. Instead, use them to build what you consider the ideal, give grants to promote your principles, finance populace-educating groups, fund pro-privacy thinktanks/projects/foundations, etc. Please don't waste money or time on heavy-handed government internet intervention.

Are you sure you aren't missing the bigger picture here?

All while you "give grants to promote your principles, finance populace-educating groups, fund pro-privacy thinktanks/projects/foundations, etc." there will be other corporations and interest groups who spend time and money on "heavy-handed government internet intervention" that will ultimately affect you.

At the end of the day, what you can do or not revolves around politics and policy; not economic markets. This includes, in case this needs reminding, property rights that make market dynamics possible to begin with.

In truth, .gov >> .com, and by pretending it is otherwise - and acting like it is - you let yourself and your country (which I presume is the US) be manipulated by those who know better and put their $$$ towards whatever their goals are.

https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_...

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

#222

Post by icelancer »

hobs wrote: post #91
chiefalchemist wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>> we can vote the government out

What do you think is more likely to happen? Companies losing market share because people stop spending money with them? Or government being voted out with meaningful change coming in to replace it?

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

#224

Post by bepotts »

blub wrote: post #135
jamiequint wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, in a way similar to most legislation, GDPR will mostly benefit the largest tech companies at the expense of small startups that may eventually compete with them. Google, FB, et al have endless amounts of resources to comply with and litigate legislation like GDPR, whereas it's a substantial cost to smaller companies to do the same.

The point of the law is to protect EU citizens, not support business. Lamenting about the fate of small businesses is getting tiresome, especially when said businesses are one dime a dozen startups whose ultimate goal on their wonderful journey is to get sold and make the founders rich.

Na, it was meant to reign in a group of companies the European establishment doesn't like under the guise of "EU citizens privacy".

It's as transparent as Republicans wanting to speak to Google about "bias".

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

#225

Post by colordrops »

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?

What if the law was that you had to execute employees found to be subverting the state? There has to be a limit right? It's not just about complying with the law.

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

#226

Post by simonbyrne »

ehsankia wrote: post #213
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…

> I'm a big fan of regulated food, clean water and pollution standards. You're comparing food and water to how a company does business in another country . These two things couldn't be more different. Does the US government also manage food and water in China? > The better question is whether Google is acting as a monopoly That's an entirely different question. The letter seemed to target the china problem directly,…

> Does the US government also manage food and water in China?

No, but the US certainly does regulate how companies can act in other countries, e.g. the FCPA.

> If Google gets screwed for doing business in China while thousands of other companies get away with it, what kind of incentive does that show?

It shows that the government believes some principles should be above making a quick buck.

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

#227

Post by ucaetano »

kodablah wrote: post #169
ucaetano wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and they do great Yep, their value never changes, which means that if you invested your savings in them, you'd get no returns. Tell me, where do you invest your retirement savings?

The value of a business is not, or should not entirely be, measured by its return on investment. You are making the GP's point for them. That some continue growth, and that's where we choose to invest, doesn't mean all should or that it is beneficial that all do.

> The value of a business is not, or should not entirely be, measured by its return on investment.

No, it is the opposite. The return on investment is measured by the value of the business.

But I'm not getting your point, are you suggesting that Google should be a charity?

Would you invest your retirement savings on a charity that will return 0%?

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

#228

Post by taurath »

bepotts wrote: post #220
IBM wrote: post #6

Brian Acton or anyone else feeling guilty about their ad-tech wealth: use your winnings to lobby for a federal privacy bill that is as strong and comprehensive as GDPR (and other EU privacy regulations). The industry is moving to enact something that maintains the status quo [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/26/technology/tech-industry-...

Or how about users take some ownership of their actions and educate themselves on how "free" services are making their money. If you don't like Google's tracking practices: don't use Google products. If you're okay with them, then keep using Google products. Free minds; free people; associating with each other freely. Washington should be weary of regulations like GDPR on principle. Plus I doubt GDPR would have passe…

> Or how about users take some ownership of their actions and educate themselves on how "free" services are making their money.

They know. There’s nothing they can do about it. Even as someone who wants to protect their own privacy it’s impossible without being in a cave or updating your habits every week. Use Linux and duck duck go and don’t use any social media and don’t have a phone and only buy 15 year old TVs and late model cars, don’t use credit cards.

Blaming internet users for not protecting their privacy indicates that one has no idea how anything works, or they make their money off of ads.

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

#229

Post by wdewind »

jniedrauer wrote: post #148
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…

We don't even have to go back very far to find examples of American companies exploiting people to the point of knowingly killing them.[0] > any solution that requires foregoing independent corporate decision making would be foolish Whether you think less regulation or more regulation is better, you can't in good faith advocate for no regulation. Corporations have demonstrated many times over the years that they are…

We can go back even less far to find examples of the US Federal Government doing arguably far worse:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

There's this narrative that the major cause of improvement in conditions (civil rights, workers rights, child rights etc.) comes from government regulation. This is called legal prescriptivism. Another narrative is that things generally improve as the economy does, and are then codified into law. This is legal descriptivism.

Typically history moves forward with a mixture of both, but it should not be taken for granted that prescriptivism is always the only way progress happens, nor that prescriptive progress always positive.

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

#230

Post by bepotts »

taurath wrote: post #228
bepotts wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or how about users take some ownership of their actions and educate themselves on how "free" services are making their money. If you don't like Google's tracking practices: don't use Google products. If you're okay with them, then keep using Google products. Free minds; free people; associating with each other freely. Washington should be weary of regulations like GDPR on principle. Plus I doubt GDPR would have passe…

> Or how about users take some ownership of their actions and educate themselves on how "free" services are making their money. They know. There’s nothing they can do about it. Even as someone who wants to protect their own privacy it’s impossible without being in a cave or updating your habits every week. Use Linux and duck duck go and don’t use any social media and don’t have a phone and only buy 15 year old TVs an…

No I'm not blaming internet users for not "protecting their privacy", I'm saying people who care about their "privacy" shouldn't be so presumptuous about the rest of us.

Plenty of people on Hacker News dislike data collection companies, that doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you. I'm plenty happy with Google collecting stuff about me. In fact, if they could use their algorithms to help me stay fit, and all they needed was me to ingest some pill every month or so while they collected information about me and gave me a readout, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Sign me up!

Not everybody cares about some "privacy" crusade. Don't ruin business models that the rest of us are okay with. If you want to use Google over DuckDuckGo, and can't get away from Twitter or Facebook, dude, that's your fault. Stop speaking for the rest of us just because you can't get your life in order.

Post reply on HN