Live data from Hacker News

Google CEO will testify before U.S. House panel in November

reuters.com

21–30 of 113 posts

Re: Google CEO will testify before U.S. House panel in November

#21
post #15
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not appearing to be giving the finger to congress, as it looked when he failed to show up to the last set of hearings? Pissing off congress is rarely a good idea.

It's been a long time since Congress, who works for you and me, has in my opinion elucidated anything I didn't already know from one of these panels. I'm not sure why Congress thinks it can at the drop of a hat order a CEO to participate in their media theatrics, and then pitch a fit when the company says "he/she is busy, we're going to send our top legal expert, who should know about the stuff you're concerned with…

The difference, of course, is that it may be under oath, and you can purjure yourself before congress.

That means what you think you know from things you read in the media might actually not be as truthy as what is said when someone has to sit down before a body that has the power to criminalize dishonesty.

And its an important tool for government. There are very public scandals that the people want answers for. You may say it fits nicely with the expectations of office that elected officials might get to the bottom of things that may effect large groups of their constituents.

Re: Google CEO will testify before U.S. House panel in November

#22
post #18
post #3

I don’t get it. What could Pichai possibly gain from participating in this kind of theatrics?

I wasn't the one that downvoted you because there's a common misunderstanding that appearing before Congress is an optional invitation and therefore the people choosing to do it must be mentally insane or stupid since there's nothing to gain from it. The reason people testify before Congress is because they ultimately have no choice. Congress has this nuclear option called a "subpoena"[1] to force you to appear. Now,…

> Instead what happens is that Congress members "ask nicely" for somebody to testify (e.g. Sundar Pichai) and then the CEO gets with his lawyers and then coordinates with Congress on a reasonable date to appear.

If Congress subpoenas someone, can they also compel them to testify under oath, opening them up to charges of perjury?

Re: Google CEO will testify before U.S. House panel in November

#23

Hopefully he will testify about Project Dragonfly as well. Human rights concerns should not get lost in the noise of partisan politics. EDIT: Also, here is a slightly better stub article with an actual quote from Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte. https://thehill.com/policy/technology/408972-house-judiciary...

Convening a hearing on a specific subject (silly as it as in this case) then making it an open season for all other grievances is another despicable aspect of these hearings.

I'm happy to see serious human rights concerns addressed in any and all forums.

Re: Google CEO will testify before U.S. House panel in November

#25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is if Google wants DMCA safe harbour protections

I'm not sure what's behind the recent prevalence to this theory but that is false. Also we should all want section 230 protection it's what preserves free speech online and the principle on which the whole web economy is built.

I don't like the idea that Google or any other entity can control how I think by presenting only one side of a story when the other side may have a reasonable objection, because it does not fit the politics of the operators of a platform. This is within the spirit of free speech.

I think it fair to say that if Google wants to be a publisher, they should be held accountable to the content they publish. If they want to be a neutral platform, they should not favor any particular viewpoint

Re: Google CEO will testify before U.S. House panel in November

#27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Convening a hearing on a specific subject (silly as it as in this case) then making it an open season for all other grievances is another despicable aspect of these hearings.

I'm happy to see serious human rights concerns addressed in any and all forums.

How come national policy of the host country is only relevant to specifically China, though?

It's one thing to say "I won't censor and that's that", one could argue about which approach does more good/harm for the Chinese citizens affected, but it's an argument.

But the argument I'm seeing go around is a lot more like "fuck China specifically". Which doesn't seem to square with the other views activists generally espouse about foreign countries/cultures.

Re: Google CEO will testify before U.S. House panel in November

#28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what's behind the recent prevalence to this theory but that is false. Also we should all want section 230 protection it's what preserves free speech online and the principle on which the whole web economy is built.

I don't like the idea that Google or any other entity can control how I think by presenting only one side of a story when the other side may have a reasonable objection, because it does not fit the politics of the operators of a platform. This is within the spirit of free speech. I think it fair to say that if Google wants to be a publisher, they should be held accountable to the content they publish. If they want to…

What you want and what the law allows are different things, also just don't let any entity control how you think.

As for 'being held accountable' as publisher, I'm sure you're aware of many publishers that favor one side or one "viewpoint" in fact it's most of them, and they aren't being held accountable for that because we live in a free country.

Re: Google CEO will testify before U.S. House panel in November

#30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Convening a hearing on a specific subject (silly as it as in this case) then making it an open season for all other grievances is another despicable aspect of these hearings.

I'm happy to see serious human rights concerns addressed in any and all forums.

I don't see a unique human rights angel here, there are many companies doing business with China and a number of other "iffy" governments, if congress was truly alarmed by that they could sanction these companies.

This thing became about political retribution after google dropped maven.

Post reply on HN