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

Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 206 posts

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#151

Post by donkeyd »

Argorak wrote: post #139
valas wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you define a "lie"? It is full of misinformation and omission of fact which then creates a false narrative. There are a few options then: a) Assange is omitting important facts intentionally (which I don't think is the case). In this case you can call this misinformation a "lie". b) Assange truly believes in the narrative and honestly thinks the important facts are not that important. In this case, well, he is…

Omissions are not lies. Yes, it's true that a lot of PhD-Students get DARPA funding, but that doesn't make the fact less true that Google also gets this. All you are presenting is different interpretations of facts and weighting them differently - which is completely okay and a politics standard. I disagree with you on one thing: if the main asset of google is trust, how come it aggressively lobbies against german co…

You are correct that omissions are not lies. However, when you need to make decisions based on information you need all possible information, not half of it. So it's not presenting different interpretations, he's providing context.

If I tell you about somebody wearing a rain coat and using an umbrella on a sunny day, you might conclude that person is a nutcase. If I add the context that this person is highly sensitive to sunlight and is protecting himself, you will probably conclude differently.

Yes, this happens a lot in politics, but that doesn't mean it's ok.

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#152

Post by cromwellian »

mrweasel wrote: post #150
cromwellian wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And? Do you think Google is going to build robot weapons for the defense department? Or, do you think this was an IP and talent Acquihire? That's what I mean by guilt-by-association. Elon Musk tried to buy Russian ICBMs, was he trying to build intercontinental ballistic missiles for nuking, or was he trying to get to Mars?

>Do you think Google is going to build robot weapons for the defense department? Do you think they wouldn't?

Of course they're not. Absolutely ZERO evidence or indication they are interested in building robot weapons for the government. To even suggest this is patently absurd and downright offensive. It has absolutely zero to do with the company mission, business model, and would be an affront to company culture as well.

Google might accidentally build SkyNet one day, but they're not going to build it on contract for the government.

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#153

Post by serf »

GeneralMayhem wrote: post #114
incision wrote: post #15

That was interesting. I've always been a bit curious about Schmidt and what sort of measure someone who is neither in awe nor seeking to impress might make of him. I think the whole piece is probably best summed up with this line towards then end. >"What Lockheed Martin was to the twentieth century, technology and cyber-security companies will be to the twenty-first." That certainly makes sense.

Only sort of. "Technology" (by which I assume you mean the sort of things produced by Google - namely, software services) and cyber-security are different from Lockheed's products in one extremely important way: anyone has the capacity and reason to use them. Only the government and a handful of large entities (airlines, maybe a few research labs) have any need for the things made by Lockheed and Boeing. But almost e…

> Only sort of. "Technology" (by which I assume you mean the sort of things produced by Google - namely, software services) and cyber-security are different from Lockheed's products in one extremely important way: anyone has the capacity and reason to use them.

No. Lockheed and Boeing are defense companies. They sell safety to citizenry in the form of defense through government as a proxy. Anyone enjoying the safety of well maintained national borders employing equipment by either of those groups are 'using' their 'product'.

They (as defense contractors, and not private plane builders) are dependent on capitalization funding -- provided by the people through a vote for elected officials -- who will have the chance to provide a positive or negative pressure on the party in question with regards to allotted subsidies and funding towards that effort.

One way that both groups (both Google and the defense contractors) are much alike is that there is no way that they could have naturally grown to such proportions without anti-trust/monopoly/power-grab laws kicking in. Their (the companies) size is the largest indicator, to me personally, that they are playing ball with the world's governments.

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#154

Post by serf »

mrweasel wrote: post #150
cromwellian wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And? Do you think Google is going to build robot weapons for the defense department? Or, do you think this was an IP and talent Acquihire? That's what I mean by guilt-by-association. Elon Musk tried to buy Russian ICBMs, was he trying to build intercontinental ballistic missiles for nuking, or was he trying to get to Mars?

>Do you think Google is going to build robot weapons for the defense department? Do you think they wouldn't?

Well, Google acquired the defense contracts that Boston Dynamics had during their acquisition, so I guess the answer is:

Yes, they are going to build robots for the defense department.

not that I like Vice.. but: http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/how-google-will-manage-its-...

better link. a list of Google defense contracts :

https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/fpdsportal?indexName=awardfull...

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#155

Post by olefoo »

mpyne wrote: post #53
api wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need an analogue of Godwin's law for the use of the phrase "conspiracy theory." It's a term used by naive establishmentarians to discredit any attempt to dig into the darker reaches of politics, even when the stuff being discussed is well documented and consistent with historical fact.

Is "establishmentarian" supposed to be the new "statist shill"?

I rather think it was a play on the word "antidisestablishmentarian" which technically would be one who is opposed to the disestablishment of the Anglican church as the official church of those lands governed by the queen of England. [1]

In this case an establismentarian would be presumed to be anyone who favors the current order of things; whether it be a democracy, a cryptocracy or a kakistocracy.

So, yes. A statist shill.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antidisestablishmentarianism

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#156

Post by serf »

cromwellian wrote: post #152
mrweasel wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do you think Google is going to build robot weapons for the defense department? Do you think they wouldn't?

Of course they're not. Absolutely ZERO evidence or indication they are interested in building robot weapons for the government. To even suggest this is patently absurd and downright offensive. It has absolutely zero to do with the company mission, business model, and would be an affront to company culture as well. Google might accidentally build SkyNet one day, but they're not going to build it on contract for the go…

>Google might accidentally build SkyNet one day, but they're not going to build it on contract for the government.

You're right, but only by default.

Google forgoes DoD funding once they acquire companies which :

1) have already received DoD funding/grants

2) already have contracts in place with the DoD that must be honored post-acquisition, but are contractually in name with the previous vendor, using Google only as the global representative of the previous existent vendor, while reaping the benefits of a contract.

So, Google surely won't create SkyNet. But 'Cyberdyne Systems : a Google Company' probably will.

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#157

Post by Argorak »

donkeyd wrote: post #151
Argorak wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Omissions are not lies. Yes, it's true that a lot of PhD-Students get DARPA funding, but that doesn't make the fact less true that Google also gets this. All you are presenting is different interpretations of facts and weighting them differently - which is completely okay and a politics standard. I disagree with you on one thing: if the main asset of google is trust, how come it aggressively lobbies against german co…

You are correct that omissions are not lies. However, when you need to make decisions based on information you need all possible information, not half of it. So it's not presenting different interpretations, he's providing context. If I tell you about somebody wearing a rain coat and using an umbrella on a sunny day, you might conclude that person is a nutcase. If I add the context that this person is highly sensitiv…

I could argue that adding the fact that a lot of PhD students receive DARPA funding and trying to mingle it with corporate funding is problematic on the same grounds, as it adds context that I don't feel worthwhile, because it distracts.

The attempt to put all context into all discussions is obviously futile. Adding relevant context is a worthwhile way of debate, but not necessarily part of any particular statement. Assange doesn't see that piece of info as relevant.

Trying to turn this on the person is not a way to go in my opinion. Prove a lie before.

Interacting with his statements (and be it "I think he's overinterpreting and I won't further engage"), is the way to go.

(To add context: I live in Berlin, a person in a rain coat and an umbrella on a sunny day is nothing special.)

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#158

Post by xnull2guest »

colordrops wrote: post #132
krapp wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you tell the difference between a shill and someone who actually holds an opposing point of view? It might be true, but Hacker News has a diverse userbase and it might as well be false. Using the term seems to me to be just a way to dismiss the credibility of critics - it's a thought terminating cliche.

Shills are easy to detect, as they out of character with the typical tone and style of messages on a particular forum. They also tend to have egregious flaws in reasoning and use emotional and heated personal attacks against the person or topic in question. The posts often get pushed to the top more quickly than usual. It has already been revealed that government agencies use sock puppets and other techniques to mani…

I disagree about how hard it is to find a shill. I'm never certain and I don't think you can be. You should register everything you read online as at least slightly suspect.

Thanks for the information and the arguments supported by links. Here are some other links for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing#Business_and_adop...

http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/07/inside-the-secret-world...

http://mprcenter.org/blog/2013/01/how-obama-won-the-social-m...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HBGary#Astroturfing

"Maraya helps you, through its proprietary tools and templates, dialogue with and retain your online audience effectively for high social media ROI. Maraya Media’s intelligent dialogue platform offers brands, agencies, community managers, publishers and individuals alike a range of social media management solutions that enables them to intelligently manage, engage, recruit and retain fans, followers and customers online.

The offering ranges from social network management and campaign publishing, through strategic audience dialogue, message and campaign planning, brand partnership and collaboration, social conversation innovation, analysis and optimization."

http://www.marayamedia.com/company.php

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140224/17054826340/new-s...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/16/945768/-UPDATED-The...

I would only add that the US uses these techniques with other countries all the time - and in fact that's what this article is ultimately about. Google's role.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/usaid-effort-t...

http://minerva.dtic.mil/

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#159

Post by cromwellian »

serf wrote: post #156
cromwellian wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they're not. Absolutely ZERO evidence or indication they are interested in building robot weapons for the government. To even suggest this is patently absurd and downright offensive. It has absolutely zero to do with the company mission, business model, and would be an affront to company culture as well. Google might accidentally build SkyNet one day, but they're not going to build it on contract for the go…

>Google might accidentally build SkyNet one day, but they're not going to build it on contract for the government. You're right, but only by default. Google forgoes DoD funding once they acquire companies which : 1) have already received DoD funding/grants 2) already have contracts in place with the DoD that must be honored post-acquisition, but are contractually in name with the previous vendor, using Google only as…

My guess is, those contracts will run out, and will not be renewed. None of those contracts are for weapons anyway.

Those DARPA contracts represent an insignificant rounding error in Google's revenue.

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#160

Post by mrweasel »

cromwellian wrote: post #152
mrweasel wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do you think Google is going to build robot weapons for the defense department? Do you think they wouldn't?

Of course they're not. Absolutely ZERO evidence or indication they are interested in building robot weapons for the government. To even suggest this is patently absurd and downright offensive. It has absolutely zero to do with the company mission, business model, and would be an affront to company culture as well. Google might accidentally build SkyNet one day, but they're not going to build it on contract for the go…

Now why would it be offensive? Is Google so much better than Boing or Lockheed Martin?

Saying that it has zero to do with Googles mission or business model isn't relevant. Google does plenty of things that has nothing to do with their mission; which I assume is still "to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful".

Android, self-driving cars, drone delivery, drug research, AppEngine and the whole robots project itself, are all projects that has little or nothing to do with their mission.

If there's money to be made in doing robot weapons for the US government I assure you that Google will at the very least consider it.

Post reply on HN