Like Comcast, Google Fiber now forces customers into arbitration • Hacker News Board

Re: Like Comcast, Google Fiber now forces customers into arbitration

#71

Post by DannyBee » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 2:22 AM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #36

DannyBee wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's not misleading. " Of course it is. People are not the companies they work for. Period. " Many of the donations are from top ranking Googlers like Eric Schmidt who directly interact with these politicians in a business sense." "many". Opensecrets lists 503 unique people identified as googlers donating. I don't believe you have any reasonable argument that there are 503 top ranking googlers who interact directly…

Have you met a significant number of Googlers? Pretty sure they bleed the full spectrum of Google's logo colors. I'd absolutely say Googlers are the company they work for. I'd argue that while perhaps 1-2% of those donors may be interacting with those politicians directly, that 1-2%, being founders, chairmen, SVPs, etc. are probably the lion's share of the actual money donated, given their higher compensation. (And a…

So, uh, yeah, i'm a googler, met a lot of them :)

"I'd argue that while perhaps 1-2% of those donors may be interacting with those politicians directly, that 1-2%, being founders, chairmen, SVPs, etc. are probably the lion's share of the actual money donated, given their higher compensation."

This simply does not jive in any way with the amounts listed on opensecrets. You don't have to argue, either, the data is right there, and it does not support this claim.

"Anna Eshoo is an excellent example of a paid Google representative: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=201.... Here's one example: (Lofgren is paid by Google as well.) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/19/anna-eshoo-zoe-lofg...

Both of these are literally the representatives for Google's district, and more importantly, tens of thousands of Google employee's district.

They are supposed to be representing what their constituents want, including Google, and Google employees.

Let's ignore that though. Your claim, that they are a mainly "paid google represenatives" is not even supported by the data you cite:

"Raised: $1,509,756"

"Donations from Google Inc Total: $34,550 Employees: $24,550 PAC: $10,000"

That's 2.4%. So your claim that this is a representative paid for and bought, because Google employees donated 1.7% of their total campaign take, and the Google company PAC donated 0.7%?

This is pretty laughable.

Even worse for your argument, literally the line below it shows that Stanford employees donated more to her campaign than Google employees.

"Stanford University: Total: $25,200 Employees: $25,200 " Stanford has 1/5th the number of employees as Google!

So by your logic, i'm guessing she's bought and paid for by Stanford, by a factor of 5 more than she's bought and paid for by Google?

Re: Like Comcast, Google Fiber now forces customers into arbitration

#72

Post by ocdtrekkie » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 2:49 AM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #71

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you met a significant number of Googlers? Pretty sure they bleed the full spectrum of Google's logo colors. I'd absolutely say Googlers are the company they work for. I'd argue that while perhaps 1-2% of those donors may be interacting with those politicians directly, that 1-2%, being founders, chairmen, SVPs, etc. are probably the lion's share of the actual money donated, given their higher compensation. (And a…

So, uh, yeah, i'm a googler, met a lot of them :) "I'd argue that while perhaps 1-2% of those donors may be interacting with those politicians directly, that 1-2%, being founders, chairmen, SVPs, etc. are probably the lion's share of the actual money donated, given their higher compensation." This simply does not jive in any way with the amounts listed on opensecrets. You don't have to argue , either, the data is rig…

Heh, had a feeling you were, couldn't prove it fron the username alone.

Her constituents also include even more people Google has ruined the lives of or put out on the street. But they don't pay her the way Googlers do.

As a Googler, you may lack the perspective to evaluate Google's behavior fairly. Presumably, you get paid drastically more by Google than Anna Eshoo. As to my point about Googlers being pretty much the same as Google direct, here you are defending their investment in Congress.

Re: Like Comcast, Google Fiber now forces customers into arbitration

#73

Post by lucb1e » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 1:05 PM UTC

kevincox wrote: post #60

Vraxx wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily true. You have to challenge it to find out if it's enforceable in many scenarios, and it might act as a deterrent as well. Even a widely known unenforceable clause can deter someone who doesn't previously know that it is unenforceable from doing the action that the clause prohibits. So I can definitely see plenty of reasons to include these types of things in a contract. Plus, what does it cost them t…

Yes, unenforceable clauses in a contract can be used as a game of chicken. Customer: You can't enforce that clause. Google: Yes we can. Customer: Nuh uh! Google: Want to go to court to find out? Customer: ...

Well if the clause is not to take them to court, and they want to take them to court, then yes they do want to go to court to find out. But I do see your point.

Re: Like Comcast, Google Fiber now forces customers into arbitration

#74

Post by Ericson2314 » Sun, Jun 19, 2016, 6:39 AM UTC

arca_vorago wrote: post #43

TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #40

Arbitration clauses are allowed because in contracts the tradition is that the parties are allowed to create private rules that will govern their future transaction. You can also nominate the venue and laws that will apply to the contract, even if you don't arbitrate. The reasoning is that the contract is a bargained document between the parties, and if a party does not like the contract, they are not forced to enter…

The problem with this perspective is that it doesnt match reality. Consumers have not been taught how to properly negotiate and enter contracts, and companies creating the arbitration clauses almost always have the power to push back on changes until the consumer relents. I wash shocked when I ordered a test Dell Ubuntu machine, took the time to read the EULA/TOS, and was appaled at their terms, which included waivin…

There was a great paper a few years back that calculated the time needed to be spent would everyone actually read the fine print---it was staggering and thus a great visceral way to get across how broken contracts are.

Legal and contractual bloat is a real problem.

Re: Like Comcast, Google Fiber now forces customers into arbitration

#75

Post by whamlastxmas » Mon, Jun 20, 2016, 12:41 AM UTC

effingwewt wrote: post #69

I posted this on another article- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11850870 -but it went unanswered, I'm hoping maybe this time someone will see this. It was in regards to google being brought a CA by advertisers who'd felt cheated (and rightly so if I understand correctly). "Serious question- Would this(a class action suit for screwing customers) have been possible if Google had put in their contract that all pa…

The mediation part is a moot point from what I've heard. Mediators don't really do anything other than facilitate discussion. If they got to choose an arbitrator that would be a different story.

Re: Like Comcast, Google Fiber now forces customers into arbitration

#76

Post by the_watcher » Mon, Jun 20, 2016, 8:13 PM UTC

lucb1e wrote: post #39

the_watcher wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't imagine I could make someone sign a form that he waives his right to sue me and then shoot him, right? To answer your question - yes, you could legally have someone sign a contract waiving his right to sue you for shooting him. However, the contract would be unenforceable, and he could sue you (for both shooting him and potentially for the contract - IIRC, that depends on the state). One of the things that…

> you could legally have someone sign a contract waiving [t]his right [...] However, the contract would be unenforceable I understand I can write any nonsense and sign it, probably because of freedom of expression or something. My point was whether that contract would be enforceable. If such a thing wasn't enforceable Google and others wouldn't be putting it in their contracts.

> If such a thing wasn't enforceable Google and others wouldn't be putting it in their contracts.

This is simply false. Almost every contract signed in the US contains unenforceable language. The vast majority of people signing these contracts simply believe that if it's there, it's legal. For example, property law is wildly tenant friendly if you actually push it. The explicit reason for this is that landlords have an illusion of power and almost always include unenforceable provisions.