I stick up for Google a lot --- nobody has done more to improve the security of the web than they have --- but they deserve credit for this kind of thing too.
I stick up for Google a lot --- nobody has done more to improve the security of the web than they have --- but they deserve credit for this kind of thing too.
Brin shows up at the protest at SFO. Kalanick makes a self-congratulatory post on Facebook [1].
No Google execs on Trump's "economic advisory group". Kalanick legitimizes policies of hate by joining the group.
People gave Google a lot of shit for their supposedly naive or hypocritical mantra of "don't be evil". Turns out it's genuine and not so naive after all.
EDIT: Including link to news story as proof:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/coralewis/deleteuber-is-trending-af...
I'm speculating, though! I don't know much about the Delete Uber thing; I'm as curious as everyone else is about it.
If there's a shortage of rides in any event, turning off surge pricing is not a way to maximize income. Makes no sense.
Uber has turned off surge pricing in the past during unexpected events (such as the New York bombing), so as to not be seen as profiting off unfortunate events.
This seems to have been done under the same principles.
(Whether one agrees with the policy is not too relevant. The subject of price increases during disasters has always been a controversial one, even before Uber, and that's a debate for game theorists and ethicists.)
Regardless of which choice Uber makes, they are open to criticism. There could have been articles right now about how Uber is profiting because of the strike by raising rates.
All I'm pointing out is that their action is consistent with how they've handled previous unexpected surges which had potential for bad PR.
To be clear, Uber broke a strike in support of the immigrants and refugees, advertising that they were doing so. Taxis drivers stood in solidarity with the immigrants and refugees by halting service in and out of JFK. Uber sent drivers there. Surge pricing was just an implementation detail of their being scabs.
If you want to argue on behalf of Uber breaking this strike, please, go ahead.
It's long been Uber's policy to disable surge pricing during 'disasters' like this, so I'm not really seeing the need for outrage here. Sure, people can be upset that Uber isnt taking place in the strike, but I don't see anything wrong with disabling surge pricing.
Sure, you can prefer that they did strike as well, but theres certainly no obligation for them to and the reaction was too much over the top.
I strongly disagree. Google, like other companies, is very opportunistic and 100% calculating. Standing up for refugees and against Trump is a no-brainer move in Silicon Valley culture, especially when 1000s of others are doing the same and the majority of the media is on your side. There's only upside and no downside for Google and its employees in doing so.
Sergey could have easily used his connections to get a 1:1 conversation with the president. That would have been 1000x more effective than joining a demo at SFO. He still chose the latter because he knew the effect it would have on social media.
Google could use their resources and power to help with other causes and problems whose negative footprint on American society outclasses the refugee problem by orders of magnitude. But why waste any resources on that, since it's not a hot topic in the media and Google's hiring plans aren't affected? Nothing to gain there...
Meanwhile they're getting close and cuddly with Trump's party to secure their political backing [1].
I'm not pro-Trump, in fact I think his refugee ban is beyond crazy, however I'm very deeply suspicious of people / organizations who tout themselves as the good guys ("don't be evil!") and then only stick their head out of their comfort zone when the cause is no-risk and it's ensured that the world is watching.
I tend to agree with the protesters here, but I absolutely agree with you that there isn't much downside for Brin in taking this stand.
I actually think that tech titans like Zuckerberg and Brin may be in a role similar to Hollywood stars in politics, but maybe even worse. Truth is, the H1B visa isn't really a visa that "allows" foreign workers to come to the US, it's a visa that allows corporate HR departments, largely in high tech, to decide who is and isn't allowed to come to the US - and the conditions under which they are allowed to stay. It's a remarkable power, an unacceptable one in my opinion. Although I'd be opposed to this kind of corporate control over the immigration system in general, I think that google showed itself very specifically unworthy of this power through its involvement in the no-poach collusion. But again, this is what I've come to expect - in fact, I'd say it's very naive to believe that handing corporations control over a big wing of th immigration system wouldn't lead to corporate mischief and an erosion of basic human rights for the workers whose lives they control.
If google, Zuckerberg, and so forth lobbied fiercely for greater freedom for immigrants - freedom to choose what they study, what companies they work for (if any), freedom to move... really, just basic human freedom, then I might be more interested in this sort of stand. Otherwise, I tend to be deeply suspicious of their motives the moment they start to speak, because I know they have a political agenda that involves gaining control over the immigration system.
But as it stands, I think that a lot of Silicon Valley "elites" like to wear the halo of being pro-immigrant while lobbying for a program that allows them to determine the circumstances under which would-be immigrants are allowed to come to the US and stay here. Just like the no-poach agreement, they use this to create a workforce that isn't allowed to participate freely in free labor markets, which I consider to be an essential component of basic human freedom.
As you can tell, I don't care for them much anymore. And yeah, this was a personal transformation that took place over decades - there was a time I admired them.
^^ this. I've had a few friends on H1B, and as far as I can tell they're just "stuck" in their jobs, or "forced" to leave the country.
Maybe, there should be an app for finding US citizens compatible "life partners" that would enable the acquisition of Green Cards.
I have heard in University one of my wives' friends wondering if she could marry an F-1 student to help him stay. Never inquired further what happened there...
silly side note: I read your comment as "a friend of one of my wives" and lol'd a little inside.
I think "wife's" is correct... but I'm not a grammaritician
If immigrants are free to decide what to study, where to work, who to work for, what jobs they wish to pursue, and so forth, then SV will have to pay enough to convince them to become software developers in the valley, rather than lawyers, real estate agents, drywall installers, dental hygienists, registered nurses, physicians, and so forth.
It turns out we have an immigration system that does this. it's called, wait for it... immigration, and the US takes 1.2 million people into the country annually under just those conditions.
It turns out that immigrants who are free to pursue their own path in life aren't interested in working in loud, open offices and staring at computer screens for hours a day working on JIRA tickets for the salary that SV feels it should pay.
As a result, SV employers have lobbied for a system that allows them to control who is allowed to come into the country, and the conditions under which they are allowed to remain here. They certainly are not lobbying for any system that would preserve freedom for immigrants.
There's a desperate need for immigration reform, as right now, it's mainly based on family reunification, which leaves a lot of people out in the cold.
But really, seriously, don't look to SV, or Zuckerberg, or Brin, for meaningful solutions. They have an agenda, and this agenda runs through their very secretive HR departments.
https://lobste.rs/s/91ah4l/neveragain_tech/comments/yk8l4o#c...
It's almost a joke for people to sign a pledge about not collecting data that can be used against minorities then support either Google or Facebook in any way. They're probably the biggest threat to them that's existed in a long time if they're compelled to share their data. The billions made on their practices ensures they won't change them any time soon. If anything, they've both gotten worse over time in invasiveness and lock-in. Yet, Never Again people will continue making products/services for Google to help them maintain market share doing more of that Orwell shit they do. Quite the moral core [with associated pay, benefits, and fun job].
Whereas, the immigration claim is believable because it impacts them personally and financially if critical people are immigrants. They have quite a bit of skin in the game. It wouldn't surprise me if they'd fight that.
Not: Google employees who sign the pledge have less moral authority than those who don't.
Rather: Google employees who sign the pledge have less moral authority than people who aren't helping collect data on anyone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqggW08BWO0
I remember watching it knowing it was satire but most of the benefits were still true. I bet the people against discrimination and such at those locations are still coding away at the algorithms and data stores to make it happen. Easier to put your name on something than to make real sacrifices. Do email me, though, when a story pops up that Google or Facebook got rid of all saved data that could be used to hurt unpopular groups all thanks to such people in the company.
Do email me, though, when a story pops up that Google or Facebook got rid of all saved data that could be used to hurt unpopular groups all thanks to such people in the company.
At... your gmail address?
Far as Gmail, I use it as an untrusted drop for potentially-malicious traffic with spam filtering and high-availability. Such a setup burdens them more than helps given free email is a loss leader. Dissidents can send me email from anonymous accounts or set up GPG exchanges where I just know them by a key and alias. I also have a private, Swiss-hosted email for users I've vetted to a degree. I pay for that under vote with my wallet concept. Thinking about moving drop address to Fastmail under same concept since I've heard enough feedback about it basically being as good as Gmail. Altogether, Google currently loses money to host my risky emails with anonymous, GPG-protected email available to those that want privacy. Looks morally neutral.
I really don't understand why someone like you who is evidently seriously against surveillance and who values privacy would give Google more ammunition to do that.
So, we start there. I'm currently quite poor with a need for reliable email for business leads. Of the free ones, Gmail is the most reliable. Of the evil companies, Google does more beneficial things than most like with Android & Chrome which we can modify for privacy. My tradeoff, based on pragmatism, is to support the lesser evil to get what I need while going out of my way to ensure people worried about their safety can contact me anonymously & encrypted. This is until I find a Gmail equivalent. Fastmail is best alternative in terms of uptime & performance per comments I've read but also in Five Eyes territory under mass surveillance. I've gotten to the point, esp seeing turn of events in Switzerland past year, that it's best to assume all email is under mass surveillance by governments, that many cooperate on persons of interest, and possibly with any encryption keys compelled out of them. And we work from there with or without email as the medium with focus on anonymization or end-to-end crypto.
Like I said, I'm currently evaluating better options that preserve Gmail's benefits without the surveillance aspects. I've seen a lot of inexpensive, private products (including email) disappear over time with trouble for their users. The recent DDOS attacks also factor into my decision where only the groups with the biggest pipes can take it. Hence, using one such provider as a temporary storage/relay for overall email process. I'm curious what providers you know of have long track record for great uptime, great privacy policies, low cost, and mitigate DDOS attacks we've seen recently. No startups because they disappear all the time.
I've heard good things about ProtonMail, but have not looked deeply in to it.
I'm not sure if there are many good, truly privacy-respecting means of communication on the internet, that aren't a gigantic pain in the ass and don't severely limit who you can securely communicate with (such as, for example, using GPG with a fully vetted web of trust). I also don't have much faith in encryption in the long run. As long as there's a record of your communication, it could be cracked at some point by someone. So I wouldn't place much trust in even the most paranoid digital communication, unless I was forced to. For anything really sensitive, I'd prefer non-electronic, more traditional and primitive means of communication.
Appreciate the feedback. Looking more and more like what I'll switch to as interim solution.
"For anything really sensitive, I'd prefer non-digital, more traditional and primitive means of communication."
This is what high-security engineer Clive Robinson and I been recommending for years now. The only exception is one-time pads on air-gapped machines if you can exchange and protect the pads. The OTP version of Tinfoil Chat combined with that would have very, strong INFOSEC. Still prefer personal communications or messages through trusted people.
Note: The elites that scheme against us all have kept their secrets using couriers and physical meetings with people of aligned incentives. Most effective model of private communication in history. Add bug sweeps or other mitigations these days.