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

361–370 of 378 posts

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

#361

Post by toss1 »

PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #352
toss1 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they are not easier to not do business with, and it is also harder to find out when we should attempt to not do business with them. Try telling people who have only Comcast to not get off the Internet, or people with only one nearby grocery store to boycott it. Both require strenuous oversight, and without a govt capable and willing to constrain that oversight, you wind up wint an economy like the 1890s robber ba…

>Try telling people who have only Comcast to not get off the Internet, or people with only one nearby grocery store to boycott it. Regardless of the personal cost to not doing business with them, they won't send an armed force after you that will kidnap you. But with the government, if you want to grow a plant on your own property that they don't agree with, they will. That makes a massive difference.

Fair point.

But, with copyright and other corporate pet issues, is it the Govt that really cares about sending the armed people to arrest and charge you, or the corporations that effectively own the govt?

The further that excess corporate power is allowed to spread, the more tyrannical it will become.

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

#362

Post by PurpleBoxDragon »

toss1 wrote: post #361
PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Try telling people who have only Comcast to not get off the Internet, or people with only one nearby grocery store to boycott it. Regardless of the personal cost to not doing business with them, they won't send an armed force after you that will kidnap you. But with the government, if you want to grow a plant on your own property that they don't agree with, they will. That makes a massive difference.

Fair point. But, with copyright and other corporate pet issues, is it the Govt that really cares about sending the armed people to arrest and charge you, or the corporations that effectively own the govt? The further that excess corporate power is allowed to spread, the more tyrannical it will become.

When the government begins acting on behalf of the corporations, or they give the power of violence to the corporation (such as happens in private prisons), it does become a major problem. In those cases the corporations should be considered an extension of the government and treat as such.

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

#363

Post by kyrieeschaton »

wilsonnb3 wrote: post #346
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.

When a Google executive describes altering search results to achieve a favored electoral outcome, that qualifies under any reasonable reading as an in-kind (a good or service provided directly, rather than a bundle of cash) campaign contribution. Whether you consider covert attempts to use their market power in search to achieve unrelated political outcomes as "rigging" I guess depends on your viewpoint.

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

#364

Post by toss1 »

PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #362
toss1 wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair point. But, with copyright and other corporate pet issues, is it the Govt that really cares about sending the armed people to arrest and charge you, or the corporations that effectively own the govt? The further that excess corporate power is allowed to spread, the more tyrannical it will become.

When the government begins acting on behalf of the corporations, or they give the power of violence to the corporation (such as happens in private prisons), it does become a major problem. In those cases the corporations should be considered an extension of the government and treat as such.

Yes, and at this point, it seems that the more useful model is to look at the govt as an extension of the corporations.

My generalization is that for a society to function, while some concentrations of power are necessary (at a minimum to allow specialization, e.g., infrastructure, policing, military, legislation, executive functions, etc.), the key is to minimize and actively avoid concentrations of power.

The largest and most dangerous concentration of power in modern times is the corporations, as we are seeing with Cicizen's United, decision, regulatory capture (FCC, Copyright law extensions, current dismantling of EPA, other regulatory agencies, etc.).

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

#365

Post by 794CD01 »

bogomipz wrote: post #128
794CD01 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone thinks authoritarianism is morally wrong. They already abet plenty of other things that some people find morally wrong, like enforcing IP law, censoring all kinds of information, cooperating with police investigations, etc, some of which you can already spin as authoritarian.

>"Not everyone thinks authoritarianism is morally wrong" The people who don't find authoritarianism morally wrong are generally elites who enjoy privilege on account of their being ranking members of that authoritarian regime. Can you provide any examples of a 21st century authoritarian regimes where this hasn't been true? Mugabe? Bouteflika? Quaddafi? Assad? I don't think so.

Examples of what not being true? You jumped from "people" to "regimes" between paragraphs but the transition wasn't complete.

If you are looking for examples of people who aren't part of an authoritarian regime but still think it's not a fundamentally immoral system, just take myself. If you are looking for authoritarian regimes that satisfy some quality, I can't tell what quality you're referring to.

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

#366

Post by toss1 »

mulmen wrote: post #337
toss1 wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you are essentially demanding either that Google: 1) actively support anti-democratic, anti-human rights activities to the extent that they're willing to pay, or 2) that the USGovt simply ban them from doing biz in those countries, or 3) that the USGovt ban doing biz of a certain type, with likely arguments around the edges of that type. 4) or something else that I'm missing. Which are you proposing?

I am proposing 2 (assuming it applies to all business) if we as a country actually have a problem with the Chinese government's treatment of their citizens. As far as I can tell we don't have a problem with it so we continue doing business with them.

I'd agree with #2 just fine.

I think the large portion having no problem continuing to do business with China on such a large scale is a folly of historic proportions.

Since that folly is unlikely to be abated, it'd be good if we at least cut off companies actively helping to undermine human rights and democratic institutions.

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

#367

Post by 18pfsmt »

dgoldstein0 wrote: post #195
jtwebman wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I checked China doesn't fall under US law. This is an international company. They can do what ever they want for a site in China. I don't agree with it but I do agree that the company can do it if they want.

This is probably true if it's a Google subsidiary doing it. But there are a lot of caveats here. Presumably US based Google employees are included in this Chinese search engine project, so there should be some legal way for the US government to involve itself if it wanted to. Not saying they should, just that a law could be written, if I've doesn't already exist, that would make it problematic.

>if I've doesn't already exist, that would make it problematic.

This is not coherent English, and I think all HNers would appreciate it if you proof-read your comments. The internet has become a complete incoherent sesspool, and I hope we can prevent the same from happening here.

It seemed like you might be making a sound (if wrong, IMO) point.

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

#368

Post by tracker1 »

luminiferous wrote: post #14
rajuvegesna wrote: post #5

Fundamental issue is the expectation that all public companies must keep growing and show profits quarter after quarter, year after year. This is obviously unsustainable. It is like a treadmill that keeps increasing speed. If you slow down, you are thrown out. If consecutive quarterly results are not good, CEO is typically thrown out. This pressure forces management to make unnatural decisions that might help short-t…

Obviously, growing every quarter significantly is not sustainable. But growing profits every quarter is how stock price goes up, right? Assuming you don't pay dividends on your stock, if you don't grow profits every quarter then your stock price doesn't go up, and the shareholders (via the board of directors) will sack the CEO. The whole incentive structure for corporations seems to cause the short term thinking that…

I think it is and should come down to either reinvestment of returns and growth, or dividends... both grow the economy, provide value and/or increase share value. What doesn't do that is parking capital in other countries as tax havens. I'm okay with the former two.

I do think shareholders are more than happy to see 10-20% in dividend returns annually. They're able to buy more stocks or diversify accordingly. I'm also okay with growth and reinvestment internally in a company (that tends to grow stock value). And it isn't an either/or issue.

What I don't think is reasonable is to see a given company try to get consistent growth in saturated markets they heavily control. It doesn't work, and trying to do so leads to horrible decision making in the longer term.

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

#369

Post by tracker1 »

titzer wrote: post #344
stale2002 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Nothing prevents you from taking that 10% and buying more shares, or diversifying.

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

#370

Post by chiefalchemist »

hannasanarion wrote: post #348
chiefalchemist wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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!

The gov didn't make Google or Amazon?

- Who enables Amazon to pay wages that requires employees to need subsidies?

- As for Google, the NSA __loves__ Google. That bias effects the gov's decisions.

Post reply on HN