Too Much Power For One Man • Hacker News Board

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#61

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 5:30 PM UTC

nmrm wrote: post #54

unclebucknasty wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Right, and I think emphasizing nutty conspiracy theories I missed the conspiracy theory in the article. Can you point it out? Again, it appeared to be a series of facts illustrating the power of Google/Page and a rational question: Do these facts represent the concentration of too much power in one man's hands? > distracts from the more important systemic and gradual, but perhaps less exciting, impact that Google a…

I wish you would read what I'm writing instead of what you want me to (not) be writing. >The article never stated that Page was building a private army. You did. Oh come on. It's the entire damn point of the article. Without this running narrative, the article's just a list of Google's most successful products and its recent acquisitions. Despite your claim, the article isn't simply a list. And the editorializing is…

[deleted]

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#62

Post by pron » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 5:36 PM UTC

jp555 wrote: post #10

A fitting cartoon analogy for cartoon logic. I am reminded of an Alan Moore quote: “In the mid 1980's I was asked by an american legal institution known as the Christic Legal Institute to compile a comic book that would detail the murky history of the C.I.A., from the end of the second world war, to the present day. Covering such things as the heroin smuggling during the Vietnam war, the cocaine smuggling during the…

The concerns expressed in the post have nothing to do with conspiracy, and everything to do with power. Democracies are usually built in such a way as to prevent concentration of power -- not to fight a real or imagined conspiracy. Concentration of power in itself is bad enough even without malevolent intent behind it.

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#63

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 5:37 PM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #61

nmrm wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish you would read what I'm writing instead of what you want me to (not) be writing. >The article never stated that Page was building a private army. You did. Oh come on. It's the entire damn point of the article. Without this running narrative, the article's just a list of Google's most successful products and its recent acquisitions. Despite your claim, the article isn't simply a list. And the editorializing is…

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#64

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 5:40 PM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #61

nmrm wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish you would read what I'm writing instead of what you want me to (not) be writing. >The article never stated that Page was building a private army. You did. Oh come on. It's the entire damn point of the article. Without this running narrative, the article's just a list of Google's most successful products and its recent acquisitions. Despite your claim, the article isn't simply a list. And the editorializing is…

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#65

Post by pron » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 5:43 PM UTC

spindritf wrote: post #19

I’m not saying that Page is going to abuse his power. I am saying that he could. And do what? Be specific. Read my e-mails? The constant fear of corporations has been puzzling me ever since I saw RoboCop. Back then at least it was tied to the fear of rising Japan who contributed to the world war not too long before. The tech companies on the other hand have to be some of the most meek and least abusive organizations…

> The constant fear of corporations has been puzzling me ever since I saw RoboCop.

The fear of corporations has to do with the fact that for many years the US population was under the thumb of a few capitalists who exploited and enslaved in all but name big portions of the populace (they even had their own private paramilitary police). It took many years and some brave men[1] and women[2] to expose the system and eventually give the federal government enough regulation power to curtail the power of corporations. Therefore, Americans in particular have very valid reasons to fear corporations, because they suffered their abuse and know what they're capable of.

The scary thing is that I'm not sure any of the robber barons ever had as much power at their disposal as Google does.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_roosevelt#Domestic_pol...

[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_tarbell

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#66

Post by nmrm » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 5:43 PM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #61

nmrm wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish you would read what I'm writing instead of what you want me to (not) be writing. >The article never stated that Page was building a private army. You did. Oh come on. It's the entire damn point of the article. Without this running narrative, the article's just a list of Google's most successful products and its recent acquisitions. Despite your claim, the article isn't simply a list. And the editorializing is…

[deleted]

The point is that ALTHOUGH Google's recent acquisitions might be problematic from a privacy perspective, painting them as something more sinister is a cheap rhetorical device which, at best, provides an easy straw-man for genuine concerns about Google's behavior wrt privacy. (edit: added this in a desperate attempt to explain what I've been trying to say since my first comment)

Also, my position has been consistent. I'm editing so much because I feel the need to write very, VERY clearly for you, because you seem to misinterpret everything that's not extremely carefully stated. {edit: and upon additional review after posting, I realize that there's some tiny thing that you could misinterpret. So I go back an edit; mostly slight rewording}

E.g. the "apparent contradiction" you pointed out isn't at all -- it's a conspiracy theory that the article's author doesn't believe, which makes it a a rhetorical device. Please feel free to point out any others.

{edit: grammar. Also, yeah, triple posts! Is this better?}

{edit: also, I always stop editing after the first comment, but usually not before. The point of indicating edits to prevent diverging discussion and lack of context; as long as there's no reply, I don't see the annoying edit comments as necessary. Sorry if I offended you...}

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#67

Post by Multics » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 5:48 PM UTC

I like Google, and what Page has achieved. If they act in ways I don't agree with, I can stop using their service(s). It's not like Google take my resources by force, and then use them to do unspeakable evil.

Page and cohorts have demonstrably shown a knack for developing tech which the world finds useful. And for that I'm grateful.

Yet! I don't need to express my gratitude to him. Instead, he's rewarded with 'disagreeable' money & power.

What does he do with the acquired wherewithal? New projects. And in counterintuitive directions, which others only find insightful after the fact!

Page's et al. investment in Calico -- their pro-longevity/healthspan biotech company -- is one such example. They're investing in one of the world's most significant problems. Maybe the most! Dismissed by others, but seen as doable by someone who has been prescient time and again!

This 'power-hungry' character may just save or extend your life one day! Contra to what others would have done with the same power/money.

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#68

Post by kabouseng » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 5:49 PM UTC

nmrm wrote: post #60

kabouseng wrote: post #57

This, and some of the comments sounds like something out of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". Damn those that make profit and dont share it with those with less ability...

What the hell are you talking about? The article is about power, not money. Also, there's no suggested course of action. In fact, a legitimate course of action could be "stop using Google's services so that if shit hits the fan, they don't have your data". How could enlightened self-interest of consumers ever possibly be construed as an assault on liberty (or whatever-the-hell)? It's really best never to think of tho…

Have you read Atlas shrugged?

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#69

Post by nmrm » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 5:52 PM UTC

kabouseng wrote: post #68

nmrm wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the hell are you talking about? The article is about power, not money. Also, there's no suggested course of action. In fact, a legitimate course of action could be "stop using Google's services so that if shit hits the fan, they don't have your data". How could enlightened self-interest of consumers ever possibly be construed as an assault on liberty (or whatever-the-hell)? It's really best never to think of tho…

Have you read Atlas shrugged?

To reiterate, how could enlightened (individual) self-interest of consumers ever possibly be construed as an assault on liberty (or whatever-the-hell)?

edit: Pretty sure not eating McDonald's every day is not an affront to capitalism. To assume that critics of McDonald's food are automatically calling for regulation/whatever, instead of just trying to educate people to help them act in their self-interest, is a caricature. Similarly, suggesting any critic of Google is automatically some sort of proto-communist is a ridiculous caricature.

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#70

Post by melloclello » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 5:53 PM UTC

pron wrote: post #62

jp555 wrote: post #10

A fitting cartoon analogy for cartoon logic. I am reminded of an Alan Moore quote: “In the mid 1980's I was asked by an american legal institution known as the Christic Legal Institute to compile a comic book that would detail the murky history of the C.I.A., from the end of the second world war, to the present day. Covering such things as the heroin smuggling during the Vietnam war, the cocaine smuggling during the…

The concerns expressed in the post have nothing to do with conspiracy, and everything to do with power. Democracies are usually built in such a way as to prevent concentration of power -- not to fight a real or imagined conspiracy. Concentration of power in itself is bad enough even without malevolent intent behind it.

The commenter is arguing the opposite - without concentration of power, you get chaos, which is a bad thing