Live data from Hacker News

Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

publicpolicy.googleblog.com

211–220 of 260 posts

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#211
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a lot of middle ground between keeping something secret until there's something take-it-or-leave-it vs. publishing every "what if we do X, will you then let us do Y" back and forth. If more intermediate work products are unfit for public eyes, perhaps they shouldn't be going there in the first place.

OK but what would they publish? General ideas? The details being published would only lead to a mess as each company could advertise and make a fuss over things. Or other countries might do the same to shift things in their favor. The end goal for each country is to do things to benefit themselves, even if it means making hard decisions. It's not like spy exchange negotiations or all other sorts of diplomatic process…

Spy exhanges and most diplomatic processes rarely gets enshrined in law. At least not without the resulting law being written in a far more open process afterwards (e.g. consider changes after the Troubles in Northern Ireland - the negotiations certainly didn't happen in the limelight, but the subsequent legal changes in the UK did happen in the open).

Whether or not "publishing each move" is beneficial depends on what "each move" is. I agree that at the most fine grained level, you don't want everyone to find out how far you were willing to go in conversations with one opposing negotiator, in case you need to negotiate similar clauses with someone else, for example.

But once you have agreed that you're giving X in return for Y, publishing that should not do much harm unless giving X is controversial. In which case the "harm" might be exactly what ought to happen.

Here's another example, which is more relevant:

During Norways EEA negotiations with the EU, the Norwegian press reported details pretty much daily. I just checked the archive of one of Norways largest papers to confirm my memory, and from '90 to '92, EEA was mentioned about 5000 times, and included things like government ministers informing the press about likely contents of Norwegian negotiation positions that had not yet been presented to the EU (but where the overall lines of the EU position was known - in one case I looked at, the minister confirmed that the Norwegian position would overall come close to what the EU had asked for in terms of regulation of granting operating licenses for EU companies in certain areas).

They certainly did not get access to everything, but they got regular briefings, and it contributed to ensuring the debate over whether or not to join the EEA shaped the negotiations, as the sitting, pro-EEA government got very clear signals about which concessions would cause the biggest problems with the opposition and/or cost them voters.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure Hillary's views are well aligned with a typical leftist agenda. I don't see her passing pro gun or anti abortion laws for example.

The Clintons are always associated with DLC (Democratic Leadership Council?), a centrist organization. Remember Bill Clinton is for all intents and purposes a Southern Democrat, so he is a close to a blue dog democratic president. Hillary Clinton luckily chose to be Senator of NY (which is a cold political move, esp. when you account for political polarization), she has moved to the Left when tides are that way. Hill…

> Other than abortion rights, Hillary was all over in many issues, including crime, welfare, immigration etc

The same statement is true about the Democratic party as a whole. They've been all over the place on those issues over the last two decades.

Clinton may not be as liberal as you seem to want, but she pretty clearly has had a liberal track record compared to her fellow party members: https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-libe...

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#214
post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what you're saying is that this law is really being kept secret for our own advantage ? Politicians can't be held responsible for their actions because they benefit us ? Can't have public influence over the deal because that would "torpedo" it ? Maybe you should move to Russia or China, and have all your deals and laws done like this. And they give the same argument you're giving : "it's for your own good". And I…

But it's not secret. Read it. https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/tran...

Not sure what you're trying to say ... obviously it was kept secret and is now being presented as a done deal, even when there are LOTS of things in there that we should never ever agree to [1][2]. Moreover it's something congress would never agree to normally.

It's 10x worse than the DMCA, it's anti-consumer, it advocates worse global warming and prevents people from doing anything about it, it's got disastrously bad anti-employee policies, and so on and so forth. I at one point called it the "Indians get medicine now. Let's fix that" agreement.

Why are you even defending it ? Aren't there any red flags in it from your perspective ? Because I'm pretty sure that if you aren't Lloyd Blankfein, that's guaranteed.

So why are you defending it.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/now-we-know-why-h...

[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eastwest-center/tpp-the-new-go...

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#215
post #104
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could see Clinton doing that backflip but if it's Trump he seems to be genuinely anti-free trade.

trump isn't genuinely anything but pro-trump.

pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro... Stack Overflow Exception

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#217
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't. I'm not sure why that would affect this debate at all?

If your local legislature doesn't enable the treaty, you aren't bound by it: it isn't a part of your law. A trade treaty is essentially a promise to pass a set of laws.

Eh, no it isn't (necessarily). That depends on whether a certain legal system is monistic or dualistic; or rather, adheres to monistic or dualistic principles (it's not a black or white thing). Without knowing where the GP is from, you can't reasonably make any assumptions, because both are common.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Julian Assange and Edward Snowden second that. The extent Google is tied to Obama administration is astonishing.

I am sorry, but hours-old accts commenting on highly controversial threads, spouting poorly cited 'almost conspiracies' doesn't seem helpful. I may be completely off, but that is how I feel; this is something that has become far too common on HN. Am I in my own world on this?

Judging other people by the age of their accts instead of their reasoning, you are in your own perfect world. Here is a simple example which shows how liberal Google is (there are plenty of them): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFxFRqNmXKg

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#219
post #145
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

trump isn't genuinely anything but pro-trump.

I'm assuming you know him well personally, otherwise how could you make such a statement earnestly.

Seemed it was an opinion. Trump, a well known and documented public figure, has certainly had a much of his life documented in media as an entertainer, author and business executive.I think there is enough evidence to make a claim (either way) about public figures & their temperment without knowing them personally.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#220
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html

That doesn't negate what I said. Why did they even change such a great motto?

I think the point is that they didn't. Google's motto is still "Don't be evil". Alphabet (Google's parent company) adopted "Do the right thing" as its own, but Google's is still in effect.

To answer the question of why "Do the right thing", it is in my opinion to support actions that they deem "right" or "good" which otherwise aren't strictly required for their operations. For example their support of gay marriage.

Post reply on HN