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

261–270 of 378 posts

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

#261

Post by int_19h »

grandmczeb wrote: post #51
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?

I don’t think it’s more messed up for companies to follow the law of the country they’re operating in. Do you think it’s messed up that foreign companies comply with US laws?

The only one who can answer that question is a citizen of the country to which those foreign companies belong, because only they can judge it within their own cultural framework. And they're welcome to do so.

And here, we're going to judge our companies by the standards of our society.

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

#262

Post by diggerNick6771 »

azernik wrote: post #260
diggerNick6771 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL @ all you arrogant idiots having a faux "high-brow" debate about Chinese politics while 80% of your possessions are... made in China . Particularly your digital "devices", i.e plastic electronic pieces of shit that control your lives. Google is bad for "doing business with an authoritarian regime", but it's okay when YOU do it. Amirite?

a) Buying things from China is different from implementing censorship systems for the Chinese government. b) See the "In Comments" section of https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html . Specifically: "Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

A) Yeah that's different because our shareholders demand profits made by outsourcing cheap shitty products to China. Pardon me for even suggesting something come before the Almighty Shareholder.

B) show me where I agreed to any of that

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

#263

Post by int_19h »

oh-kumudo wrote: post #176
aqme28 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what would you propose?

Well, ironically, the proposed approach is to have government has censor police within Google, to ensure the opinion is, you know, balanced, left and right.

Google can have whatever opinions it wants.

When it starts acting out of them, that's another matter.

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

#264

Post by AnimalMuppet »

diggerNick6771 wrote: post #262
azernik wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a) Buying things from China is different from implementing censorship systems for the Chinese government. b) See the "In Comments" section of https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html . Specifically: "Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

A) Yeah that's different because our shareholders demand profits made by outsourcing cheap shitty products to China. Pardon me for even suggesting something come before the Almighty Shareholder. B) show me where I agreed to any of that

B) You posted here.

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

#265

Post by meko »

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 wonder when Americans lost the idea of 'government for the people, by the people'. They see the government as some spOoOoOKy entity when the reality is the government is the only thin barrier of protection people have against actors who want to prey on them. Businesses are beholden to profit, individuals beholden to themselves. Imagine what your life would be like without the bill of rights, or the constitution, laws or courts. The government is obligated to the interests of it's constituents. Lack of trust in the government is how we end up with egomaniacs in the office trying to run the country like a business.

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

#266

Post by int_19h »

ucaetano wrote: post #22
rajuvegesna wrote: post #5

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. It is like a treadmill that keeps increasing speed. If you slow down, you are thrown out. If consecutive quarterly results are not good, CEO is typically thrown out. This pressure forces management to make unnatural decisions that might help short-t…

> 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!

And yet people don't "invest" into blatant pyramid schemes.

Sustainability is more important than growth.

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

#267

Post by ajmurmann »

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…

I think the are two kinds of regulations. There is the kind that is written down clearly. I can read it; understand what I'm supposed to do and not do and act accordingly and be done with it. There is also the other kind where I need to hire an expert to interpret the regulation and then file an application with the government and if it gets rejected after a long time I have no recourse but to go back to the same agency again. Obviously the first kind of good and the second kind should be avoided. This seems more like the second kind. Maybe we could make it the first somehow?

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

#268

Post by chc »

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…

What's being suggested here isn't even kind of similar to a bill of attainder, not even if you really squint. This is like saying, "You can't prosecute me for theft before you prosecute this other thief, because that's a bill of attainder." No court would entertain that argument.

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

#269

Post by pdkl95 »

rifung wrote: post #158
blub wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the comment you're replying to meant more that they should be obliging businesses to do things but not specific businesses. E.g. make laws that apply to all companies as opposed to picking on one company or another. So I think you're actually agreeing since gravity applies to all things vs arbitrarily deciding which things to pull down.

Bills of attainder (laws that target a specific person or group of people) have always been unconstitutional. The are explicitly prohibited federally in Article 1, Section 9:

    No Bill of Attainder ... shall be passed.
States are explicitly prohibited in Section 10:

    No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder ...
Any legislation that specifically targets Google would be quickly overturned by the court.

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

#270

Post by tsunamifury »

int_19h wrote: post #259
tomlagier wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes. We're long overdue for some house cleaning in that regard. You should not be able to run your company in US - enjoying the fruits of a free democratic society with rule of law, due process etc - and use those fruits to enable the opposite elsewhere in the world. If Google, Facebook etc don't like it, they're welcome to move their headquarters and main campus to China. Then it will be an internal matter of China.…

This is a nice platitude, but once you dig deeper you'll see that its not coherent. You're saying that companies are obligated to spread their home nation law to other nations, and conversely foreign companies to you in your own nation. I believe you'd find that extremely uncomfortable very quickly.
Post reply on HN