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

Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 378 posts

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#231

Post by tmalsburg2 »

bepotts wrote: post #220
IBM wrote: post #6

Brian Acton or anyone else feeling guilty about their ad-tech wealth: use your winnings to lobby for a federal privacy bill that is as strong and comprehensive as GDPR (and other EU privacy regulations). The industry is moving to enact something that maintains the status quo [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/26/technology/tech-industry-...

Or how about users take some ownership of their actions and educate themselves on how "free" services are making their money. If you don't like Google's tracking practices: don't use Google products. If you're okay with them, then keep using Google products. Free minds; free people; associating with each other freely. Washington should be weary of regulations like GDPR on principle. Plus I doubt GDPR would have passe…

> GDPR was only passed because the companies they were "targeting" (and they were targeting a specific set of companies let's please be real) were foreign.

This is complete and utter nonsense and only shows that you know nothing about EU policy making. The EU regulates the shit out of EU-based businesses. That's very well-known and quite controversial. And by the way, GDPR affects a ton (!) of EU businesses, basically every company that has some kind of web page. Do you really think there are no internet businesses beyond Silicon Valley?

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#232

Post by matt4077 »

test001only wrote: post #118
andrepd wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah right, "following the laws", because discussions of morality can be reduced to whether it "follows the law" or not? No, that's absurd. Google is objectively abetting an authoritarian regime and providing it with extremely useful tools to maintain and strengthen totalitarian control over 1.4 billion people, and this is wrong.

Because government making decision based on morality is slippery slope as morality is very subjective and varies with people, race and religion. Also is not Republican the party which advocates small government?

It's worth mentioning that "slippery slope" was originally meant as a fallacy, i. e. the invalid argument that something good is nonetheless bad when extrapolating to some extreme version of it.

It's easiest to see how useless the "slippery slope" concept is when noticing that it can be applied to absolute everything:

"if I start by feeding my own kids, I will soon have every needy kid at my door, asking for food"

"If we start to expect politicians not to be murders, a parking ticket will soon be disqualifying"

etc. etc.

Specifically here: government makes decisions based on morality all the time. I'd argue every single decision by the executive, legislative, and judicial branch is based on morality. It's obvious for the criminal justice system. For everything else, like deciding between different uses of tax money (aircraft carrier or social housing), making decisions requires some sort of function to optimize, and that function can ultimately only rest on morality.

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#233

Post by bepotts »

tmalsburg2 wrote: post #231
bepotts wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or how about users take some ownership of their actions and educate themselves on how "free" services are making their money. If you don't like Google's tracking practices: don't use Google products. If you're okay with them, then keep using Google products. Free minds; free people; associating with each other freely. Washington should be weary of regulations like GDPR on principle. Plus I doubt GDPR would have passe…

> GDPR was only passed because the companies they were "targeting" (and they were targeting a specific set of companies let's please be real) were foreign. This is complete and utter nonsense and only shows that you know nothing about EU policy making. The EU regulates the shit out of EU-based businesses. That's very well-known and quite controversial. And by the way, GDPR affects a ton (!) of EU businesses, basicall…

It's well known the EU doesn't like Google and Facebook because of how disruptive they are; culturally and economically. Please don't insult my intelligence and say that France would have voted to hurt some of the most innovative (and financially successful) companies in the world if they were French. Be real.

Macron went all "Start up France" and was trying to attract some talent that would have been in the United States but can't due to Trump's habits. Every European country would vote another EU country out of the EU if it meant gaining Facebook, Google, and Twitter.

And Europe is irrelevant when it comes to consumer internet companies. That's just calling a spade a spade.

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#235

Post by tomphoolery »

bilbo0s wrote: post #7

I actually applaud Poulson for leaving Google in protest of Google's Chinese business practices. Having mentioned that, I think I have to part ways with him when he implies that the correct way to "fix" this is to have the government come in and make these sorts of business decisions for the company. I don't believe in the government obliging businesses to do things. Especially when it looks like this whole thing is…

they don't have the same level of influence as Google. Ford doesn't cause political upheaval. McDonald's never fanned the flames for a protest.

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#236

Post by chris_mc »

NeoBasilisk wrote: post #211
chris_mc wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>invest your retirement savings We would need to rework the whole system if we threw out the "constant growth" method of running a company. If we take care of the people so they don't have to worry about saving for retirement, it's possible to redesign the economy in this way and our goals as a society. You obviously can't change one major axiom of the US economy without revisiting the remaining axioms!

No idea why this is getting downvoted.

Hacker News is full of capitalists and libertarians who hate any mention of alternative economic systems.

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#237

Post by hannasanarion »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #168
hobs wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really: "When companies become too large it quickly becomes a game of anti-competitive actions and distorted markets" Companies dont have our interests in mind any more than the government, but we can vote the government out.

> "Companies dont have our interests in mind any more than the government, but we can vote the government out." I see it differently. Everytime I reach for my wallet I'm voting. On the other hand, the government "market" has been cornered by two parties. We get to vote for their henchmen & henchwomen who (self) serve their parties - parties that are bought and paid for by forces we can't see nor control - more than t…

What history books are you reading? Boycotts never work unless the product of the company in question is the reason for it.

Yes, the one you're thinking of included. Before she stepped on any bus, Rosa Parks volunteered to be the spark that the NAACP needed to accomplish their long-term goal of putting Civil Rights in the headlines. The leaflets were already printed and the picket signs were already made. The Montgomery Bus Company capitulated days after the boycott was announced, but the NAACP refused to end it until Parks' case had gone all the way to the Supreme Court and civil rights was dominating the headlines. It was a bit part of a grand political opera, and the Montgomery Bus Company was never the true target, just the excuse. The boycott wasn't effective, the campaign was effective. The wallet was just a stepping stone to the big prize: the vote.

Nothing can stop an anti-consumer corporation with monopolistic power except government intervention. Roosevelt didn't bust trusts by politely recommending alternatives.

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#238

Post by robotrout »

robotrout wrote: post #137
oconnor663 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, my biases are much more in favor of the US govt than of China's, for all the obvious reasons. But we have to be able to see that this is opening a huge can of worms. For example, I think it's pretty troubling that the French government banned a bunch of Muslim religious garments. Does that mean I should advocate that various US companies need to stop doing business with France? Clearly there's _some_ level of a…

I applaud France's action here. Should have done it earlier. These women are often forced to wear such garments or face severe retribution from their fundamentalist communities. Making it illegal allows them a similar loophole that a US law not permitting US companies to implement surveillance programs would allow US companies. It takes the option off the table without inciting retribution against the women or the co…

[flagged]

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#239

Post by travisoneill1 »

simonbyrne wrote: post #226
ehsankia wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm a big fan of regulated food, clean water and pollution standards. You're comparing food and water to how a company does business in another country . These two things couldn't be more different. Does the US government also manage food and water in China? > The better question is whether Google is acting as a monopoly That's an entirely different question. The letter seemed to target the china problem directly,…

> Does the US government also manage food and water in China? No, but the US certainly does regulate how companies can act in other countries, e.g. the FCPA. > If Google gets screwed for doing business in China while thousands of other companies get away with it, what kind of incentive does that show? It shows that the government believes some principles should be above making a quick buck.

> It shows that the government believes some principles should be above making a quick buck.

It shows that congress believes cheap PR for them is above somebody else making a quick buck.

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#240

Post by akst »

Isn’t this out side the jurisdiction of US courts? This product isn’t operating in the US, so I’d be surprised if the court would do anything...

To clarify I’m not a google Stan, I don’t even use gmail, it’s just that Google isn’t the only American business to launch in China, why is google being singled out here?

Post reply on HN