Google Makes Most of Close Ties to White House | Hacker News Reader

Google Makes Most of Close Ties to White House

wsj.com

45 pointsprotomyth16 comments

Doesn't it seem a bit suspicious when newspapers keep going after tech companies, who just happen to be their main competitors for advertising dollars?

I'm not saying the articles are false (most of them, anyway). I'm sure Google did lobby the FTC, and there really were (very small) protests about tech buses, and Apple really did collude to hold down wages, and so on. But somehow, when a tech company does something bad, it always winds up on the national news, while the thousands of other companies doing similar things are quietly ignored.

"Remember the exercises in critical reading you did in school, where you had to look at a piece of writing and step back and ask whether the author was telling the whole truth? If you really want to be a critical reader, it turns out you have to step back one step further, and ask not just whether the author is telling the truth, but why he's writing about this subject at all." - http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

I have a bone to pick with that quote. Wondering why the author is writing about the subject at all is just a heuristic (inaccurate and prejudice at times, though always thought-provoking) for whether the author is telling the truth. Am I conflating "critical reader" with "critical learner"?

Probably has more to do with the fact that tech companies in general actively try to portray a progressive, benevolent do good image of themselves. Because of that, when they run amuck it's more news worthy or at least more salacious than when your typical scummy corporation does the same.

making your corporate slogan "don't be evil" invites a closer inspection

No more suspicious than using a Paul Graham quote on Paul Graham's discussion board to bolster your opinion.

Oil company lobbies Washington isn't exactly news is it?

Seems like a necessary evil for any sufficiently large company. Get big enough and everybody wants their say, including various local governments. You can't avoid them completely, so the next best thing is to have a very good relationship with the one whose jurisdiction affects you the most to keep them as uninvolved as possible.

Now, when that kind of relationship turns into getting the government to go after your competitors, overlook actions that are themselves unethical, make life more difficult for anyone not as large as you, that's highly unethical. On the other hand, trying to make sure that you don't suddenly get treated differently as a large company than an equivalent small company doesn't seem unreasonable (though having to do it in the first place does).

> Now, when that kind of relationship turns into getting the government to go after your competitors, overlook actions that are themselves unethical, make life more difficult for anyone not as large as you, that's highly unethical.

But that is what the competition is doing. You can't ask a CEO not to do the best to protect his employees and shareholder value. The CEO of any large American corporation has this huge and unresolvable ethical dilemma.

This is a symptom of rule by men, as opposed to rule by law.

Rule by men is what the American voters want. It is what allows them to "get away with" all kinds of social programs---both conservative and liberal ones.

Given a choice between sacrificing the public and sacrificing my company, I personally, if I were a major corporation CEO, would put my company first. In other words, I'd choose to play it Game of Thrones style.

Woe to those who don't have $potus on their team.

I'm not arguing that it doesn't make sense. I'm arguing that it's unethical. Also:

> You can't ask a CEO not to do the best to protect his employees and shareholder value.

Yes, I can. Your requirement is not to maximize profits at all cost unless that's what you write into your corporate charter. Don't do that. You can just as easily write a charter that leaves you room to make decisions that maximize long-term value even at the expense of short-term value, or that allow you to make ethical decisions at the expense of mercenary decisions, or even a "we can do whatever we want, live with it" charter.

(And the interests of employees and shareholders are not always aligned. An ethical decision may involve favoring the former at the expense of the latter, for instance.)

Only if you're a B-corporation [1]. There are a number of court precedents that hold that a company's officers have a fiduciary duty to maximize long-term shareholder value.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation#Differences...

(Commenting on the main point made in this thread: it is technically the government's responsibility to not be swayed by whatever corporate influence tactics are used on them. They do a piss-poor job at it - somewhat understandably, as the money & influence provided by corporations often makes the difference between staying in office and being removed from office. But in theory, you can ask for whatever boons you want, it's just that our elected officials are supposed to consider the rights of all citizens when granting them.)

> (Commenting on the main point made in this thread: it is technically the government's responsibility to not be swayed by whatever corporate influence tactics are used on them. They do a piss-poor job at it - somewhat understandably, as the money & influence provided by corporations often makes the difference between staying in office and being removed from office. But in theory, you can ask for whatever boons you want, it's just that our elected officials are supposed to consider the rights of all citizens when granting them.)

Agreed, and again, seeking preferential treatment (whether directly or in the form of regulations that are easier for you to comply with than your competitors) seems blatantly unethical. However, it shouldn't take asking a "boon" to stop the inexorable "this looks big enough and has enough money in it now, time to screw with it" cycle that seems to crop up every time an industry or company gets large enough for local governments to notice.

I think the Microsoft antitrust trial was a cautionary tale to the whole tech industry. You cannot expect lawmakers to make fully informed and reasoned decisions without full information and perspective. You need to be your own best advocate.

You can read about the lobbying operation Google conducted to avoid the FTC from pursuing their case here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-google-is-transfo...

Well, after decades of Comcast, Lockheed, .. (and hundreds of other companies I don't much like) lobbying in Washington, at least this one is slightly better (read: more likely to lobby for things I personally agree with)

Yes, they're playing the game

But I'd rather have them push for net neutrality than for budget for more military assets.

(Now what we need is to find Oil on Mars or Tritium on the Moon or something)

Maybe Google has a database with information that the Government is interested in?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com