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

241–250 of 378 posts

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

#241

Post by travisoneill1 »

bogomipz wrote: post #58
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?

>"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?

Would you like Chinese companies operating in the US to do the same?

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

#242

Post by tcbawo »

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've gotten down voted for this opinion in the past, but US equity broker-dealers have created self-regulatory bodies like FINRA with sensible auditing, rules with teeth, and certification processes simply to avoid being micromanaged by the SEC. This has worked fairly well at limiting many client/insider abuses. The large internet companies would do well to put something like this together as a buffer instead of praying against government policy intervention or antitrust proceedings.

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

#243

Post by StanislavPetrov »

stale2002 wrote: post #45
pc86 wrote: 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…

The critical flaw is that one of the stated goals of the FED is to manufacture inflation. You need to "grow" at at least the rate of FED-induced inflation, otherwise you are shrinking. Its how our debt-based, rent-seeking economy "functions".

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

#244

Post by _iyig »

ehsankia wrote: post #223
mzs wrote: post #15

last week >Google hushing employees on Chinese search engine https://www.axios.com/google-china-dragonfly-employees-searc...

Wouldn't you also get hushed for leaking anything else though? Why should there be an exception here?

These were not leakers, but employees internally sharing a memo which described Google’s plans for China. It’s unclear whether the memo’s contents were (originally, explicitly, and/or retroactively) labeled need-to-know.

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

#245

Post by partiallypro »

ewjordan wrote: post #50
partiallypro wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eric Schmidt said in a recent interview that the internet is going to split in two with China's version (censorship) v US's version (openness.) So...company behavior is matching that. I think the problem is that I firmly believe that freedom will win out in the long run. Chinese leadership will lose its grip once reality hits its economy, and Google's view is shortsighted in this regard imo. People will remember who…

Will the other tech companies be remembered for never resisting in the first place? IIRC Microsoft and Yahoo we're both like "censorship and tracking? HELL YEAH, where do we sign?" from day one.

That's quite different than Google tying search queries to a phone number. Though I also don't agree with censorship in Bing's regard either. Also from my understanding a lot of Bing/Yahoo results aren't "official policy" and the reports of censorship from 2014 have been addressed, a lot having to do with simplified Chinese characters/bad translation. Google even has higher share in China than Bing. Google already operates in China with .cn domain through Hong Kong, the new action is an entirely different posture.

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

#246

Post by Tehnix »

bepotts wrote: post #233
tmalsburg2 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> GDPR was only passed because the companies they were "targeting" (and they were targeting a specific set of companies let's please be real) were foreign. This is complete and utter nonsense and only shows that you know nothing about EU policy making. The EU regulates the shit out of EU-based businesses. That's very well-known and quite controversial. And by the way, GDPR affects a ton (!) of EU businesses, basicall…

It's well known the EU doesn't like Google and Facebook because of how disruptive they are; culturally and economically. Please don't insult my intelligence and say that France would have voted to hurt some of the most innovative (and financially successful) companies in the world if they were French. Be real. Macron went all "Start up France" and was trying to attract some talent that would have been in the United S…

> It's well known the EU doesn't like Google and Facebook because of how disruptive they are

Um, what? No?

> Please don't insult my intelligence and say that France would have voted to hurt some of the most innovativ...

Luckily the EU does not consist of just one single country.

> Every single European country would vote another EU country out of the EU if it meant gaining Facebook, Google and Twitter

This is honestly so ridiculous, I am starting to wonder if you even know what the EU is. You are aware that it is a large union of countries that keep each other accountable and help each other, right? No single country could ever get rid of another country.

> And Europe is irrelevant when it comes to consumer internet companies. That's just calling a spade a spade.

Wow...just wow...

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

#247

Post by diminoten »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #191
ewheeler wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd recommend reading more about the 'information fiduciary' approach[1] promoted by Prof Jonathan Zittrain (and others) which I find to be among the most realistic steps in a better direction, as it offers a 'grand bargain' in the spirit of DCMA's 'safe harbor' for companies that choose to commit to putting consumers and their rights above maximizing profit. [1] https://hbr.org/2018/09/how-to-exercise-the-power-you-…

I don't want a bargain. I want those companies to stop tracking, and actually respect privacy.

I think each person should be given a clear choice.

I should be allowed to give up my privacy for convenience, I just want to know exactly how much privacy I'm giving up before I make that call. I don't think that's unreasonable, and I think we can pass legislation that puts something like that into effect without harming the economic viability of current companies or future startups.

I don't want to bog down startups with regulations that force a "you must be this tall to ride" situation, but it's getting out of hand, how exposed I am without being told about it.

I just want to know, is all.

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

#248

Post by diminoten »

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.

The problem with this thought is that small businesses help EU citizens, and making it harder for the businesses to do that means the EU citizens are indeed being harmed.

All that assuming GDPR actually does harm businesses, which is definitely debatable. I just don't think "fuck businesses" is the right stance to take, because it doesn't account for the benefits businesses provide to their customers.

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

#249

Post by hannasanarion »

Bartweiss wrote: post #217
Rapzid wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I can appreciate the sentiment here, but I'm reluctant to accept it on a purely practical basis. Which is to say: how do we make that happen? What does it look like? The idea of inalienable rights is theoretical at best, because a large fraction of the world is alienated from any right one cares to name. As an assertion that humans deserve these things, that they should be demanded without compromise or compensation?…

> As is, this is easy to sort out: the Bill of Rights restricts the actions of the US Government and no one else

As a matter of law, this is correct. It's true that the Bill of Rights is only legally binding in America.

But we are not here arguing that the Bill of Rights aught to be binding on the whole world. The argument is that Congress ought to treat the Bill of Rights as if it were binding on the whole world. These aren't just laws, they are foundational principles.

Under the letter of the law, Congress isn't prohibited from secretly imprisoning and torturing random people on foreign soil, but that doesn't mean that this behavior is okay, it means they've found a loophole and they don't care about the principles.

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

#250

Post by Lin-Den »

The issue I see is that the United States government consistently attacks internet freedom, much more so than Google has historically. The decision to make a censored search engine may not be the best one, but it's definitely a lot better than what Alphabet would get up to if it were under the control of Congress.
Post reply on HN