Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google: Open Letter to Australians

about.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 437 posts

Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians

#421

Post by eru »

LockAndLol wrote: post #399
eru wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google complies with all the relevant laws. If Australians want Google to pay more taxes, they should change the tax laws to make them pay more taxes.

> Google complies with all the relevant laws. Yeah, they use every loophole the system provides to pay the least amount possible. If I used every loophole to take advantage of a system and make it do what I want, I'd be labelled a criminal. I'd be called a hacker. But since it's a big company and the system isn't a computer, well... I guess it's OK then. They're hacking the system and you're fine with it because "tec…

The loopholes are part of the laws.

I am very glad that I moved to a country, Singapore, that in general has sane and simple laws that don't suffer nearly as much from loopholes as most other countries.

Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians

#422

Post by eru »

altindag wrote: post #316
eru wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In theory a tech-competent judge could enforce laws to be closer to technical reality.

That's true. I suppose that's the idea. If that's the case, technical education should become a part of judgeship, if it's not already.

Yes. Though of course it would also help if the laws were written by tech-competent people.

(That doesn't mean that all people in parliament need to be competent. Most laws are written by specialists, not MPs.)

Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians

#423

Post by eru »

paulnechifor wrote: post #350
eru wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google complies with all the relevant laws. If Australians want Google to pay more taxes, they should change the tax laws to make them pay more taxes.

Is this what Google is complaining about, changing laws?

In some sense, yes.

Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians

#424

Post by eru »

ohgodplsno wrote: post #398
eru wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google complies with all the relevant laws. If Australians want Google to pay more taxes, they should change the tax laws to make them pay more taxes.

"Multinational makes money dance through 13 countries to pretend that Google Ireland is an absolutely different entity to Google Australia". Google can legitimately fuck off. The amount of money they have stolen from states throughout the world is measured in billions. And some people have the gall to come and say "bUt It'S lEgAL!1".

Honestly, I'd rather have Facebook have the money than most governments.

Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians

#425

Post by thu2111 »

thelastname wrote: post #355
thu2111 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an anglo-centric perception. Which countries has Google News been banned in? Spain. China. Germany briefly until Google told the news orgs they'd never pay, so could license their content for free or disappear from News and search. Newspapers trying to screw Google out of money by pressuring politicians is not an Australia or News Corp specific problem. It's happening everywhere. Really, all it reveals is how…

I don't know why this gets a so downvoted, it's correct. There was/is a huge pressure made by French and German media owners.

Because it's a fact that contradicts the leftist "English speaking countries bad, EU civilised and good" narrative. That's a reliable way to get downvoted on HN.

Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians

#426

Post by eru »

throwaway45349 wrote: post #364
eru wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would suggest to vote with your feet. Pick a government you like and move there, instead of trying to change the government in the place you happen to be born in. Voting with your feet also changes where you pay taxes. (Unless you are American, then you need to jump through some extra hoops to make sure your mother country doesn't get your money any more.)

I'm not sure this is a good idea. Why would anyone abandon their home/nation to jump ship into a culture they know nothing about -- except for government policy? Only in the US with it's state system is what you're describing practical.

The US is far from the only federal country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism#Examples

You are not only jumping to a new government policy, but the whole package changes. Including culture etc. Yes.

Many people around the world are looking to migrate. If borders were more open, many more people would migrate. About why? You could go and ask some of them. (Or as an alternative, Googling for 'why do people migrate?' gives lots of results to studies etc.)

Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians

#427

Post by eru »

opinologo wrote: post #337
eru wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was probably the least useful thing to criticise in the comment you replied to. I know, I know, pedantry is fun. But I don't think the Queen makes much of a difference to Australia's problems one way or another.

Indeed she did make a difference in 1975 when her representative fired no other than the Prime Minister. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitution...

Yes, every once in a while. Hence my qualification with 'much of a difference'.

Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians

#428

Post by [deleted] »

josefx wrote: post #354
barry-cotter wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? Democracy isn’t a sacrament, it doesn’t sanctify the government. Hitler was democratically elected. Democracy does not have moral valence as such.

Hitler wasn't elected, in fact the Weimar Republic was mostly incapable of forming a working government during the time it existed. Like many before him Hitler was assigned his position in the hope that his failure to uphold his promises would also cripple his support in the population. His biggest grab for power was underlined by armed SA troops in the Reichstag, a lot of imprisoned or outright missing politicians a…

[deleted]

Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians

#429

Post by eru »

kiplkipl wrote: post #322
barry-cotter wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? Democracy isn’t a sacrament, it doesn’t sanctify the government. Hitler was democratically elected. Democracy does not have moral valence as such.

I find the elected fascist to be an interesting thought experiment. If someone was fairly elected on a platform of genocide, would you comply? If someone doesn't, does that mean democracy is second to morality? And, if they don't, do they think that person should be allowed to stand on that plaform?

Duh, obviously democracy ranks way lower than morality.

Whether someone should be allowed to campaign for genocide depends on the laws of the country. In modern Germany platforms like that are explicitly forbidden. But the laws of the Weimar Republic were more value agnostic.

Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians

#430

Post by eru »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #308
berkes wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't really want to trust Google, but they behave much better than the Australian government, If you ignore who does it worst in pracice, the most important argument becomes apparent: The Austrialian government is a democratically assigned entity; one that has (or should have?) checks and balances in place; one that is closely monitored as your various references prove. Google, a foreign private entity has no su…

On the other hand, the government is a true monopoly (for good reason) so you can't just stop being their "customer" whenever you like. You may end up spending your entire life oppressed by your fellow citizens who may be indifferent towards your needs. So I think there is a good reason for not having the government directly run everything. It wouldn't even mean democratic control over everything. It would mean burea…

> It wouldn't even mean democratic control over everything. It would mean bureaucratic control, very indirectly influenced by a democratic choice between a handful of parties once every 4 or 5 years.

Even direct democratic control would be a nightmare. In practice the bureaucratic layer probably tempers the worst excesses.

Post reply on HN