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

Big tech’s pro-climate rhetoric is not matched by policy action, report finds

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 63 posts

Re: Big tech’s pro-climate rhetoric is not matched by policy action, report finds

#31

Post by zohch »

epistasis wrote: post #29
zohch wrote: post #25

... I mean ... if anyone thought that big business's support of anything is anything more than self centered, I dunno, I guess it's nice to be naive. Businesses are pro LGBT, pro-climate, pro-abortion only because they know that is where the legislative, regulatory and media power is. I would actually find it surprising if the author of this article though that big-tech's pro-climate rhetoric was founded in some deep…

Businesses are pro-abortions?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tripwire-texas-abortion-john-gi...

> "His comments disregarded the values of our whole team, our partners and much of our broader community," the company said, noting that vice president Alan Wilson is now interim CEO.

If businesses aligns perfectly with establishment power structures on everything else, why would they not on this?

I don't blame them, they are after all bottom feeding power hungry money grubbers, it's just what they do, they can't help it. Tripwire had no choice but to get rid of their CEO, and their CEO was naive for thinking that his opinion would be tolerated. That would basically be suicide for the business if they tolerated it as all establishment power structures would do whatever they can to penalize them.

Some more:

https://www.lyft.com/blog/posts/defending-drivers-and-womens...

> This law is incompatible with people’s basic rights to privacy, our community guidelines, the spirit of rideshare, and our values as a company.

Re: Big tech’s pro-climate rhetoric is not matched by policy action, report finds

#32

Post by gorwell »

PoignardAzur wrote: post #11
mensetmanusman wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you have legislators going to $35k/meal events while wearing ‘tax the rich’ clothing, you get the clear sense it’s all a nihilistic game.

Assuming you're referring to AOC going to the MET Gala, I feel you're implying she spent $35k of taxpayer money to get there, while she was in fact invited. Calling it "nihilistic" is a bit strong considering the robe matches her policy positions and congress votes.

It's all performative and a distraction from the fact that the Met Gala is literally an event for rich people to show off their incredibly expensive clothes that will only be worn once. Unmasked while the servant class is masked, helping them get ready, carrying their dresses and serving them food and drink.

Tax the rich is a fully coopted slogan and is in fashion among the ruling class. Wearing a dress that reflects their fashion is not storming the Bastille or making them uncomfortable at all. They loved it and it worked great, considering how many peasants are defending their largesse during a pandemic. Get back to me when Senators worth $50M and the attendees who paid $35,000 for a ticket are actually getting taxed.

https://youtu.be/Y4yq726SUpE?t=550

Re: Big tech’s pro-climate rhetoric is not matched by policy action, report finds

#33

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

epistasis wrote: post #26
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #4

We need to be very skeptical of arguments that say “only X%” without explaining what they think the number should be and why. Is there any value of X where this article would not have been written?

Maybe 25-50%, or so? The $65M denominator on that percentage is also very low compared to typical industries, so the combination of low percentage and low denominator sticks out. Though I tend to credit tech for not lobbying a ton, unilateral disarmament is not always viewed positively. Also, the only reason this editorial/article is being written at all is that tech is viewed as "friendly" and amenable to persuasion…

> Also, the only reason this editorial/article is being written at all is that tech is viewed as "friendly" and amenable to persuasion.

Well, I agree with that, but I think this implies that the article is disinformation. The author knows that millions of dollars spent on climate policy advocacy is pretty good compared to a lot of businesses; she writes "their engagement is almost nonexistent" not because that's an accurate assessment, but because she was paid to frame it this way by a climate policy group (https://www.theclimatepledge.com/us/en/Signatories) which four of the five companies haven't joined. (Did you see the sponsored content tag? I didn't the first time through!)

Re: Big tech’s pro-climate rhetoric is not matched by policy action, report finds

#34

Post by leetcrew »

dylan604 wrote: post #19
mensetmanusman wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s well known she didn’t pay for that, but the optics are hilarious.

Only if your optics are so scoped in that you can't see the big picture.

what is the big picture? to me it looks like a politician wore an expensive dress to an expensive party and (apparently) didn't have to pay for either. I guess the way it relates to her positions is a tad hypocritical, but it's well within the realm of what I generally expect from a politician. I don't find the story particularly impressive or disappointing.

Re: Big tech’s pro-climate rhetoric is not matched by policy action, report finds

#35

Post by refurb »

michaelt wrote: post #7

It's always struck me as odd how many other industries have managed to get many staunch defenders among our rulers, while the tech industry seems so powerless, in comparison. Loads of senators are happy to side with oil companies and deny climate change, in spite of all the evidence and threat to the planet. No-one among legislators is in favour of pointless bureaucracy - and yet tax preparation software companies ar…

This comes across as an odd position - you don’t think big tech has the ear of the president? Aren’t there pictures of Obama dining with Silicon Valley “elite”?

You mention building houses. The answer is of course big tech can get that done - it’s just not a priority regardless of what they say

Re: Big tech’s pro-climate rhetoric is not matched by policy action, report finds

#36

Post by refurb »

epistasis wrote: post #29
zohch wrote: post #25

... I mean ... if anyone thought that big business's support of anything is anything more than self centered, I dunno, I guess it's nice to be naive. Businesses are pro LGBT, pro-climate, pro-abortion only because they know that is where the legislative, regulatory and media power is. I would actually find it surprising if the author of this article though that big-tech's pro-climate rhetoric was founded in some deep…

Businesses are pro-abortions?

They “believe” whatever gets them the most power in DC.

Re: Big tech’s pro-climate rhetoric is not matched by policy action, report finds

#37

Post by bserge »

People's pro-climate rhetoric is not matched by actions. The majority "cares" in polls, but won't lift a finger.

And really, in the end what's it matter if a few million humans kick the bucket?

No one's gonna miss us and there's gonna be plenty of space for everyone else.

Re: Big tech’s pro-climate rhetoric is not matched by policy action, report finds

#38

Post by mttddd »

michaelt wrote: post #7

It's always struck me as odd how many other industries have managed to get many staunch defenders among our rulers, while the tech industry seems so powerless, in comparison. Loads of senators are happy to side with oil companies and deny climate change, in spite of all the evidence and threat to the planet. No-one among legislators is in favour of pointless bureaucracy - and yet tax preparation software companies ar…

I have worked a lot with lobbyists and part of the reason is that the tech companies dont work together. When the banks or oil companies go to capital hill their lobbyists are generally in alignment. The sense iv gotten from folks I talk to is that is not the case with the tech companies and instead they have competing opinions on things.

Another place you can see this illustrated is when the CEOs of these companies testify in front of congress. The bank CEOs all stay more or less on the same message. Comparatively on the tech side there is a lot more variance in message. Some of this is changing, you can clearly tell Zuck is getting much more coaching and Sundar Pichai is well prepped. Then you have Dorsey who is always a complete wild card.

Re: Big tech’s pro-climate rhetoric is not matched by policy action, report finds

#39

Post by Robotbeat »

blfr wrote: post #17
michaelt wrote: post #7

It's always struck me as odd how many other industries have managed to get many staunch defenders among our rulers, while the tech industry seems so powerless, in comparison. Loads of senators are happy to side with oil companies and deny climate change, in spite of all the evidence and threat to the planet. No-one among legislators is in favour of pointless bureaucracy - and yet tax preparation software companies ar…

Oil basically powers the modern world. Everything from food production through material manufacturing to basic transport collapses without oil. Food abundance, even if it's can be barely called that like corn syrup, is the most basic soma. No politician would even think risking it. Meanwhile you could swap out Facebook for any other social network with barely any noticeable change in the economy and world. People can…

Oil powers tractors, but that can easily be electrically driven. Nitrogen Fertilizers, which is probably what you are referring to, are made using hydrogen, not oil. That hydrogen is usually produced using natural gas (again, usually not oil), but until the 1950s or so when steam reforming started to utter dominate, we tended to make it with hydropower electrolysis. There’s no fundamental reason you need oil for food abundance or transport. None whatsoever.
Post reply on HN