3 ms·

Eric Schmidt Working Directly with Clinton Campaign

16 points by thisisdallas 10y ago

This email from Shmidt recommends the Clinton campaign hire "low paid permanent employees". He also states, "Key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them." https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/37262#efmAC9AE0AZBAZdA3DA4n

wh0rth 10y ago
Not really surprised. Hasn't he been one of the campaigns biggest donors?
gragas 10y ago
>"Key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them." That is extremely disturbing.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  What are the odds of there being 'a single record for a user that aggregates all that is known about them' for Google services?
jstevens2357 10y ago
Imagine Bezos, Zuckerberg, Cook or Nadella sending an email like this. This is purely about monopoly maintenance. Google has everything to lose if Clinton appoints enforcement-oriented antitrust officials. Also relevant: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-google-is-transforming-power-and-politicsgoogle-once-disdainful-of-lobbying-now-a-master-of-washington-influence/2014/04/12/51648b92-b4d3-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-google-is-transf... http://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-u-s-antitrust-probe-of-google-1426793274 http://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-u-s-antitrust-probe-o...
piotrjurkiewicz 10y ago
This submission has been silently hidden from the list on HN main page (despite it wasn't flagged!). I checked the first 6 pages and it's not visible there.
- dang 10y ago
  Of course users flagged it. Boring though it may be, that's usually the explanation. The [flagged] annotation shows up when the flags cross a high threshold. Posts without URLs also get a standard penalty. Cherry-picking a single detail from a complex body of information does not make for a good HN post, because it's too editorialized: the one who cherry-picks that detail essentially determines the story for everyone else. When the subject is political, multiply this paragraph by 10x; when it's inflammatory, by another 10x. This and other comments of yours use phrases like "silently hidden" which suggest manipulation of the site for political ends, but we don't do that, and everything that happened to this post and its follow-ups (12840284, 12844254) was completely standard. They're just not good posts for HN, and as they get more meta (e.g. "why was my post about why was my post flagged flagged"?), they get worse and worse.
ericzawo 10y ago
Pretty sure he alluded to something like this in The New Digital Age.

16 points by thisisdallas 10y ago

wh0rth 10y ago

Not really surprised. Hasn't he been one of the campaigns biggest donors?

gragas 10y ago

>"Key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them." That is extremely disturbing.

jacquesm 10y ago
What are the odds of there being 'a single record for a user that aggregates all that is known about them' for Google services?

jstevens2357 10y ago

Imagine Bezos, Zuckerberg, Cook or Nadella sending an email like this. This is purely about monopoly maintenance. Google has everything to lose if Clinton appoints enforcement-oriented antitrust officials. Also relevant: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-google-is-transforming-power-and-politicsgoogle-once-disdainful-of-lobbying-now-a-master-of-washington-influence/2014/04/12/51648b92-b4d3-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-google-is-transf... http://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-u-s-antitrust-probe-of-google-1426793274 http://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-u-s-antitrust-probe-o...

piotrjurkiewicz 10y ago

This submission has been silently hidden from the list on HN main page (despite it wasn't flagged!). I checked the first 6 pages and it's not visible there.

dang 10y ago
Of course users flagged it. Boring though it may be, that's usually the explanation. The [flagged] annotation shows up when the flags cross a high threshold. Posts without URLs also get a standard penalty. Cherry-picking a single detail from a complex body of information does not make for a good HN post, because it's too editorialized: the one who cherry-picks that detail essentially determines the story for everyone else. When the subject is political, multiply this paragraph by 10x; when it's inflammatory, by another 10x. This and other comments of yours use phrases like "silently hidden" which suggest manipulation of the site for political ends, but we don't do that, and everything that happened to this post and its follow-ups (12840284, 12844254) was completely standard. They're just not good posts for HN, and as they get more meta (e.g. "why was my post about why was my post flagged flagged"?), they get worse and worse.

ericzawo 10y ago

Pretty sure he alluded to something like this in The New Digital Age.