Google CEO will testify before U.S. House panel in November
reuters.com
reuters.com
EDIT: Also, here is a slightly better stub article with an actual quote from Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte. https://thehill.com/policy/technology/408972-house-judiciary...
I think Dragonfly is horrible, but why would the House care?
[0] https://www.mercurynews.com/2007/11/06/lawmaker-scolds-yahoo...
As much as I think that's horrible, there are no laws in the US objecting to any of that.
I would feel the same way if Google were to develop an additional surveillance tools in their products, such as e.g. recording all audio calls and/or giving government ability to remotely listen to smartphone's microphone.
edit: grammar
Morals are personal values, so you should say "there is a moral difference for me between..."
> I would feel the same way if Google were to develop an additional surveillance tools in their products, such as e.g. recording all audio calls and/or giving government ability to remotely listen to smartphone's microphone.
What if the government mandated Google to do so, would you feel the same way?
The Chinese government mandated that Apple handed over all user data to it, and built all the backdoors to give the government access to it (stored by a government-controlled company). Is that different?
I hope it's obvious to everyone that it doesn't matter whether it's Google, $BigTechCo, or anything else being pushed this way. We have nothing against Google, this has nothing to do with what's in the press or making the rounds this week, and I'm sure that the many Googlers here are as put off by this behavior as the rest of HN. Plus they have an additional reason to be angry at you, for tarnishing their reputation.
Given that we spend our days asking HN users not to accuse each other of astroturfing without evidence—because doing that is such internet poison—few things make more steam come out my ears than finding actual evidence of this abuse. You couldn't do anything worse to wreck the cohesion of this community (edit: or put Google's standing in it more at risk—users here really care about this).
This thing became about political retribution after google dropped maven.
[0] https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/08/28/open-letter-google-repor...
I'm sure these organizations are great and are doing wonderful work but they are not government entities and Google has no obligation to respond to them, further more these are non profits, attaching themselves to a high profile subject like Google gives them more exposure and potentially more donations.
They promised not to pursue "technologies whose purpose contravenes widely accepted principles of [...] human rights".
1. A seemingly willful disreguard for the facts. 2. Another striking commonality that I can't aledge but a trip through your comments will bear out. The topic always seems to be common. The timing of the account creation is of course purely circumstantial. Draw your own conclusions, but to say that you are constructively adding to discussion would be a reach.
Please don't insinuate astroturfing in comment threads. If you think you're seeing abuse, email us at hn@ycombinator.com so we can investigate. We ban accounts when we find evidence of abuse (I've banned that one), but just dropping a comment in the thread makes it unlikely that we'll ever see it. It also poisons discussion in the case where the insinuation wrong, which is far more common.
It's one thing to say "I won't censor and that's that", one could argue about which approach does more good/harm for the Chinese citizens affected, but it's an argument.
But the argument I'm seeing go around is a lot more like "fuck China specifically". Which doesn't seem to square with the other views activists generally espouse about foreign countries/cultures.
[0] http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/udhr/article_19.html [1] https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/08/28/open-letter-google-repor...
As long as they willingly cooperate with US intelligence interests, which they do, that long they will be able to do whatever they want.
It's a win-win situation for the US government: Have Google, Facebook and co. do the dirty work and get the bad rep, while US government looks like the good guy for occasionally poking at them, never demanding any real change, but still getting all the data.
The reason people testify before Congress is because they ultimately have no choice. Congress has this nuclear option called a "subpoena"[1] to force you to appear.
Now, with prominent people like CEOs and baseball celebrities, it never escalates to the point of issuing a formal subpoena and having Federal marshalls arrest and forcibly drag them into Congressional chambers.
Instead what happens is that Congress members "ask nicely" for somebody to testify (e.g. Sundar Pichai) and then the CEO gets with his lawyers and then coordinates with Congress on a reasonable date to appear. Of course, the CEO can try some stalling tactics (e.g. talk to some Congress members "off the record", etc) to buy some time... but ultimately, he's going to have to face Congress sooner or later. The more promptly the requested witness willingly appears before Congress, the better it is for public perception.
It's better if the CEO shows cooperation with Congress. The totally opposite tactic is for the CEO to show up and refuse to answer any questions by constantly pleading the 5th Amendment through the entire proceeding. That would look really really bad.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress#Subpoenas
If Congress subpoenas someone, can they also compel them to testify under oath, opening them up to charges of perjury?
I'm not sure why Congress thinks it can at the drop of a hat order a CEO to participate in their media theatrics, and then pitch a fit when the company says "he/she is busy, we're going to send our top legal expert, who should know about the stuff you're concerned with (law) anyway."
That means what you think you know from things you read in the media might actually not be as truthy as what is said when someone has to sit down before a body that has the power to criminalize dishonesty.
And its an important tool for government. There are very public scandals that the people want answers for. You may say it fits nicely with the expectations of office that elected officials might get to the bottom of things that may effect large groups of their constituents.
See: Fox news.
The news to conservatives seems biased, but only because conservatives are breaking so many laws, and conventions.
If you've ever had family or friends that delve deep into conspiracies, there's no amount of rational argument, logic, data or facts you can bring up that help them.
The actual news and journalism that fox news and CNN puts out is fine. The opinion/analysis sections of both sites are heavily partisan in one way or the other though.
More importantly.. check the results. A majority of Fox News viewers believe things like Obama was born in Kenya, or Saddam Hussein really had WMD, despite these being obviously false. Multiple studies by different organizations have indicated that Fox News viewers are less informed than no news viewers on any political topic involving 'alternative facts'.
The proof is in the pudding.
I suppose it's also possible that the viewers have already decided they'd prefer to believe lies, and choose their news source accordingly. Doesn't exactly acquit the news station.
No.
They are blatantly anti-trump
Maybe they're just anti-criminal, anti-corruption or anti-treason? I read news from Reuters and the AP and stay away from Opinions. Let me share with you (in case you're just watching Fox News) - it isn't good for the GOP - criminals, traitors and corruption everywhere.
Nope. They are not all the same in how they handle the press.
Obama, for instance, once said some things indicating he was 'irritated' with Fox News. Trump thinks the press - the one mentioned in the 1st amendment of the US constitution - is an "enemy of the people" and has said so loudly.
So no, they're not all the same. I mean, I'm sure they'd all love it if the press fawned over them 24/7, but there are big differences between a Trump, Erdogan or Maduro, and, say, an Obama or McCain.
A fair question is to ask whether biased news or a biased press are preferable over a more neutral (non partisan) press.
If a biased press is not an issue, then “interference” from foreing interests are less of a problem, unless they are for reasons, categorized differently —-however, they would seem to be overarchingly about bias, except one is domestic and one is foreign.
But they also define "fake news" to be any outlet that isn't praising them constantly.
When interviewing liberals, don’t follow forcefully up on omissions or questinsble assertions.
When interviewing a conservative (regular, not Trumpist) will bring up omissions or will follow up on questionable assettions more forcefully.
Regarding campaiging, they will embed more with liberal candidates and follow progress more than with conservative candidates.
I’d be happy to know I’m wrong, but this is my take listening to NPR regularly.
As far as embedding, I believe that is at the discretion of the campaign.
See https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/08/22/chinas-mass-internment-...
Not hearing either of those.
But it's not accurate to imply 2.2 African Americans are locked up simply for being African American. A certain number (somewhere between 1 and however many people are locked up) of all races, are rightfully locked up because they have committed actual crimes. Like violent crimes, not dealing weed.
TLDR: locking people up for theft or violence is not the same as locking people up for wearing beards or praying.
If you're singling out an entity as uniquely bad, and saying they should be treated in a unique way because of it, you have to justify that they're uniquely bad.
This is why it is used by Politicians and shitty news channels, and this is why whataboutism needs to stop. Let’s focus objectively on the topic at hand.
Furthermore, justification should be based on moral underpinnings, idealistic values, rule of law and societal norms.
By pointing fingers at (what may not be true equivalence), is a massive distraction. Stop it please.
I point out similar behavior among other world powers, raise the question of what's so specific, and you call it whataboutism. You stop it. I was arguing to the topic in good faith.
They are two completely separate atrocities that are only discussed together to distract from one or the other depending on who is whatabouting.
Even if you want to constrain the subject to specifically "dealing with central asian muslim separatists over the last couple decades".. seems a little tough for an American to argue with a straight face.
I appreciate the candor, though, so thanks. Nice to know the mental place this is coming from.
Trump doesn't stand for, or enjoy the support of, all conservatives. In fact quite a few of his policies and actions directly contravene long-held conservative principles, like free trade and staying out of internal business decisions.
Furthermore even if that had any bearing on their search results whatever google presents on their own damn website is also none of the government's business.
Also we should all want section 230 protection it's what preserves free speech online and the principle on which the whole web economy is built.
I think it fair to say that if Google wants to be a publisher, they should be held accountable to the content they publish. If they want to be a neutral platform, they should not favor any particular viewpoint
As for 'being held accountable' as publisher, I'm sure you're aware of many publishers that favor one side or one "viewpoint" in fact it's most of them, and they aren't being held accountable for that because we live in a free country.
The copyright stuff applies to everyone already.