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

Too Much Power For One Man

drewdavismedia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 93 posts

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#11

Post by k__ »

wwwwwwwwww wrote: post #9
themartorana wrote: post #4

With truly evil billionaires out there - the Koch brothers come to mind - and family run organizations that take horrible advantage of employees - like Walmart and the Waltons - why is it so many people want to make a case against Google and its founders? Yes, it makes sense to keep a check on powers. But I'm way more worried about all of our three-letter agencies and the private billionaire donations behind the powe…

>With truly evil billionaires out there - the Koch brothers come to mind what the fuck do you think gives you the right to claim someone is evil? I literally cannot imagine how much of a goddamn bubble you must live in to think you have any right to call someone evil because their political opinions differ from yours.

Isn't evil as undefined as good?

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#12

Post by mden »

hosay123 wrote: post #8

Article forgot to mention Lex's many biometrics acquisitions (e.g. Neven Vision) prior to sending his fleet of cameras down every road in the civilized world, dabbling in mass genetics (23andme), "accidental" mass capture of open wifi traffic, spyware he convinced 63% of all web sites to deploy (Analytics), or the sensor-packed mobile devices he has root on in a few million peoples' pockets. It would only require som…

Isn't it nice how you can make most things sound evil if you just use the right wording. What you wrote reminds me of cases where law enforcement takes terms like "subversion" used by an engineer and extrapolates evil plots out of them.

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#13

Post by pistle »

wwwwwwwwww wrote: post #9
themartorana wrote: post #4

With truly evil billionaires out there - the Koch brothers come to mind - and family run organizations that take horrible advantage of employees - like Walmart and the Waltons - why is it so many people want to make a case against Google and its founders? Yes, it makes sense to keep a check on powers. But I'm way more worried about all of our three-letter agencies and the private billionaire donations behind the powe…

>With truly evil billionaires out there - the Koch brothers come to mind what the fuck do you think gives you the right to claim someone is evil? I literally cannot imagine how much of a goddamn bubble you must live in to think you have any right to call someone evil because their political opinions differ from yours.

Let's see... he's a human with his opinions, knowledge, and internet access. He can claim whatever he wants.

It's the same thing that gives you the right to ride quixotically in to win the internet for billionaires everywhere this fine day.

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#14

Post by x1798DE »

blibble wrote: post #6
paul_f wrote: post #3

Last I checked, GOOG is a public company that answers to a board of directors and shareholders. Not a private company with a megalomaniac potentate heading it up.

Larry and Sergey control 55% of the voting rights: http://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2014/04/02/google-sto... if the rest of the shareholders don't agree with them they can... do absolutely nothing about it

They likely can't vote to make specific decisions, but Google is accountable to its shareholders nonetheless and could be held legally liable if they were to do something detrimental to shareholder interests.

Not sure how much of a remedy that really is, but it's at least there.

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#15

Post by Scoundreller »

blibble wrote: post #6
paul_f wrote: post #3

Last I checked, GOOG is a public company that answers to a board of directors and shareholders. Not a private company with a megalomaniac potentate heading it up.

Larry and Sergey control 55% of the voting rights: http://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2014/04/02/google-sto... if the rest of the shareholders don't agree with them they can... do absolutely nothing about it

I actually don't worry too much about them.

It's if/when these massive tech companies go bankrupt and monopolistic control crudely goes to the highest bidder (likely some leveraged buyout organization) that I worry about.

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#16

Post by mfisher87 »

themartorana wrote: post #4

With truly evil billionaires out there - the Koch brothers come to mind - and family run organizations that take horrible advantage of employees - like Walmart and the Waltons - why is it so many people want to make a case against Google and its founders? Yes, it makes sense to keep a check on powers. But I'm way more worried about all of our three-letter agencies and the private billionaire donations behind the powe…

Come on.

The article specifically ends with this after setting up the scenario:

>I’m not saying that Page is going to abuse his power. I am saying that he could. And that, should make us uneasy. If the old saying is true, that power corrupts, then perhaps Larry Page has too much power for one man.

The point is obviously that Google has far too much power in our society, in excess of just about any other organization, even some governments, and that the Google motto shouldn't make us trust them with it. No one should be trusted with the power Google has. The people at the helm are only human.

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#17

Post by hosay123 »

mden wrote: post #12
hosay123 wrote: post #8

Article forgot to mention Lex's many biometrics acquisitions (e.g. Neven Vision) prior to sending his fleet of cameras down every road in the civilized world, dabbling in mass genetics (23andme), "accidental" mass capture of open wifi traffic, spyware he convinced 63% of all web sites to deploy (Analytics), or the sensor-packed mobile devices he has root on in a few million peoples' pockets. It would only require som…

Isn't it nice how you can make most things sound evil if you just use the right wording. What you wrote reminds me of cases where law enforcement takes terms like "subversion" used by an engineer and extrapolates evil plots out of them.

Which wording do you speak of? About the only loading used here is "Lex", which was borrowed from the article. The remainder is a fairly plain depiction of reality

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#18

Post by domiono »

It's not a question if someone with too much power will abuse that power. It always happens, always. It's not a question of if it will happen or not, it's a question of when and under what circumstances.

That's why we have the division of power in governments, that's why we have countries, because too much power concentrated by too few individuals will always get abused. If not by the individuals themselves, someone else or another organization, the NSA comes to mind, will find a way to abuse that power at some point in time when the conditions are right.

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#19

Post by spindritf »

I’m not saying that Page is going to abuse his power. I am saying that he could.

And do what? Be specific. Read my e-mails?

The constant fear of corporations has been puzzling me ever since I saw RoboCop. Back then at least it was tied to the fear of rising Japan who contributed to the world war not too long before.

The tech companies on the other hand have to be some of the most meek and least abusive organizations in existence. They pale in comparison even to a provincial police office who will dispatch storm troopers and search your house for plants based on the flimsiest of evidence.[1]

Yet in some people's mind they are this imminent threat, though not really specified. How does that happen?

[1] http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/law_enfor...

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#20

Post by zhte415 »

I don't disagree with the general point that power easily corrupts, but found it odd this was the only post on the website (bar an About page - the Contact page links to the About page, which contains what I read as blurb as best).

So, like usual, I did a WHOIS.

This domain was registered yesterday: July 12th.

   Domain Name: DREWDAVISMEDIA.COM
   Registrar: LIQUIDNET LTD.
   Whois Server: whois.liquidnetlimited.com
   Referral URL: http://www.liquidnetlimited.com
   Name Server: DNS1.FREEHOSTIA.COM
   Name Server: DNS2.FREEHOSTIA.COM
   Status: clientTransferProhibited
   Updated Date: 12-jul-2014
   Creation Date: 12-jul-2014
   Expiration Date: 12-jul-2015
Seems like FUD to me.
Post reply on HN