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

341–350 of 378 posts

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

#341

Post by titzer »

pg_bot wrote: post #27

This "broad pattern of unaccountable decision making", also called permissionless innovation, is the reason why America has a culture of innovation. For those unaware, the United States runs on what I call "Air Bud rules", named for this scene from the children's movie.[0] To summarize, as long as there isn't a rule forbidding you from doing something, you can do it. While I applaud his personal stance on refusing to…

> This "broad pattern of unaccountable decision making", also called permissionless innovation

I'll take your permissionless innovation and raise you 8 million tons of plastic garbage going into the oceans every year[1], a depleted Ozone layer, black lung, asbestos, and unbreathable air. (Not to mention global warming--egad!) The problem is that industry "permissionlessly innovates" and because profitable innovations flourish in the marketplace, the system blindly scales bad ideas to global proportions, and only after we've accumulated massive debt do we try restrict their actions with feeble legislation which is roundly shouted down by deniers funded by the profits of those industries and poo-pooed by corrupt legislators beholden to their financiers.

You see why there might be some systemic problems with this default setting?

We need to jettison this idea that companies get to do whatever they want "because it's for the economy!" and only later do we reign them in when they've inevitably wrecked something that we only recognize is important in hindsight.

[1] Who knows, maybe some might come back with "oh it's those dirty trash monkeys in India and Indonesia who can't be good and put their garbage in a hole like we do". To that: yeah, the problem is we didn't innovate and scale the economy hard enough to save the planet. Right. Meanwhile, who thought it up? Who sold them all those damn coke bottles and chip bags?

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

#342

Post by hazz99 »

earenndil wrote: post #297
hazz99 wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2. You're making it seem like Google is entitled to all the business it wants. That's not true in the least. Why not?

'Why not?' is never the right question to ask. The onus is on you to support a claim, you cannot demand of the other person to prove a negative.

Didn't they propose that "Google is not entitled to all the business it wants" without justification? I'm prodding for them to support the claim, because (as you said) the onus is on them.

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

#343

Post by hazz99 »

int_19h wrote: post #313
hazz99 wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2. You're making it seem like Google is entitled to all the business it wants. That's not true in the least. Why not?

Because it is an American corporation, for starters. Corporations are artificial entities that are established by governments - they don't exist "naturally", and thus have no natural rights whatsoever. They only have such privileges as the society deems to bestow on them when it creates them, and those privileges can and do come with obligations. So, if we as a society decide that American companies shall not aid and…

    So, if we as a society decide that American companies shall not aid and abet human rights violations elsewhere in the world, then that's what they do.
Ah, I didn't realise we were discussing "entitled" from an American legal perspective. In that case, you're correct.

Imo, however, restricting globalism just makes markets less efficient. Thus hurts everyone, regardless of the moral questions in any specific circumstance.

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

#344

Post by titzer »

stale2002 wrote: post #45
pc86 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You still need to grow by more than the dividend or you will erode share price over time. Nobody invests $100 into a company so that a year from now it is $100, even if they get a couple $2.50 checks throughout the year on top of that.

> You still need to grow by more than the dividend or you will erode share price over time No you don't. Imagine a company that has a share price of 100$. And this company makes 10$ in profit, per share, and returns that 10$ in profits to shareholders every year in perpetuity. Thats a 10% rate of return that investors would be happy to accept in perpetuity. People accept this deal all the time. Usually they are calle…

> Thats a 10% rate of return

It isn't, because it's not compound interest (exponential growth), which is what everyone is after--and needs, to beat inflation. It's a fixed revenue stream. To make it compound, one would have to reinvest the return in this stock or something else, and reinvesting in this stock would increase its demand, which pushes its price up, and then we're off to the races again.

The whole system is mathematically unstable. It's only survived this long due to slow(ish) growth, but it keeps experiencing repeated price shocks, crashes, currency rebases, debt defaults, and finally issuing new currencies (which, btw, is why everyone is going nuts over crypto currencies). It can last quite some time--perhaps a couple generations--when the exponents are very low (read: 10% growth), this thing is going off the rails. Welcome to the show!

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

#345

Post by djrobstep »

pg_bot wrote: post #27

This "broad pattern of unaccountable decision making", also called permissionless innovation, is the reason why America has a culture of innovation. For those unaware, the United States runs on what I call "Air Bud rules", named for this scene from the children's movie.[0] To summarize, as long as there isn't a rule forbidding you from doing something, you can do it. While I applaud his personal stance on refusing to…

You can always rely on Hacker News to come through with the corporate bootlicking perspective.

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

#346

Post by wilsonnb3 »

kyrieeschaton wrote: post #302

Google has a specific division, Jigsaw, previously Google Ideas, dedicated to advancing the interests of a group more or less synecdochic with the US State Department. They paradropped in a company of engineers to save the signature Obama administration policy proposal, at massive effective subsidy. We have just seen video and documentary evidence of them attempting to rig US elections to their favored result by mass…

> We have just seen video and documentary evidence of them attempting to rig US elections to their favored result by massive, illegal, in-kind contributions to the Democratic party.

Your Washington examiner article falls short of saying that Google made any kind of illegal contributions. It also falls short of providing evidence that Google tried to rig any elections.

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

#347

Post by chiefalchemist »

hannasanarion wrote: post #237
chiefalchemist wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 Montgom…

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

- Perhaps. But how often does the gov play a role in creating that monopoly? And sustaining it while the monopoly deepens it grip?

- Perhaps. But with rare exception (i.e., your example?) my wallet is still more powerful than your vote.

- Perhaps. But given the Snowden revelations, in the case of Google, whose side do think the government? Even if by chance the gov does something (to Google) its not going to address gov's key role in these situations.

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

#348

Post by hannasanarion »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #347
hannasanarion wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Montgom…

"Nothing can stop an anti-consumer corporation with monopolistic power except government intervention. Roosevelt didn't bust trusts by politely recommending alternatives." - Perhaps. But how often does the gov play a role in creating that monopoly? And sustaining it while the monopoly deepens it grip? - Perhaps. But with rare exception (i.e., your example?) my wallet is still more powerful than your vote. - Perhaps.…

1. The government didn't make Google or Amazon

2. My example explains why this sentiment was wrong. The montgomery bus boycott was a political tool and only was "successful" due to a nationwide political (ie, voting) campaign.

3. You know that Congress was super pissed by the Snowden revelations and changed the law, right? They even used their votes, not their wallets, to do it!

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

#349

Post by tremon »

pg_bot wrote: post #145
forapurpose wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This "broad pattern of unaccountable decision making", also called permissionless innovation, is the reason why America has a culture of innovation. I've seen that theory, but my understanding is that striking a proper balance is what fosters innovation; anarchy yields corruption and spoils for the powerful; it does not reward the most productive and innovative. Also, my impression is that other things may be much…

I'm not advocating for anarchy, just that we stick to the laws that are actually codified. We should be reactive to bad behavior, not proactive. Instead of blanket calls for regulation, we should be specific and considerate when making new rules as they often have unintended consequences. Instead of having to constantly ask for permission, you should be able to read the rules and make decisions independently. You don…

we should be specific and considerate when making new rules as they often have unintended consequences

Shouldn't we be equally specific and considerate when developing/deploying new technology?

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

#350

Post by another-one-off »

morenoh149 wrote: post #332
pg_bot wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made no such argument for no regulation. My argument is that we have a set of rules, and we should not interfere with decision making if rules have not been broken. If in response to some exploitation of the rules which you deem as unhealthy to society you may pass new rules to deal with that behavior. You can't just mess with someone because you don't like them.

I take issue with the spineless bit. If a corporation is undermining basic human rights that's a problem. You also can't expect exployees to stand up to a corporation because they may need the job desperately. There are certain things a government must do. I'd say protecting human rights is the role of government.

> You also can't expect exployees to stand up to a corporation because they may need the job desperately.

If an employee thinks their job security is more important than the human rights of the population of China then I personally have no problem with that. This is because we have a lot of evidence about how much the average employee values human rights and anybody who expects great things from them is going to be disappointed, so I don't.

But to say the government must be responsible for the moral aspects is profoundly irresponsible. "Just following orders" got a lot of Nazis hanged at Nuremberg. If an employee does something they have a personal moral responsibility. Maybe don't bring the law in because it is happening in a foreign country, but claiming that moral responsibility doesn't factor in because people like money is not how we want to run our values system.

Post reply on HN