3 ms·

The CEO of Google was busted by his emails for conspiring to suppress wages. WikiLeaks recently released a 2014 email[1] from Eric where he appears to conspire

The CEO of Google was busted by his emails for conspiring to suppress wages. WikiLeaks recently released a 2014 email[1] from Eric where he appears to conspire with the Clinton campaign/dnc to have "low paid permanent employees". [1] https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/37262 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/37262 E: bots are out?

hga 10y ago
More like acquiescing to Apple's demands that Google do that, and they did quite actively, but not at his/Google's initiation. Which doesn't change the crime that much. The greater point is that the CEO of a company with digital user assets, let me call them, can be thoroughly evil, while company policy and enforcement keeps his hands from directly tampering with those assets. Silently changing someone's postings is one of the vilest betrayals of trust a platform can commit, the only worst I can think of is forging new ones out of whole cloth, and if that happens without major changes resulting in the company, that says a great deal about it as a whole, and whether you should have any dealings with it, especially seeing as such assets have been used to criminally convict people, and specifically one Rowan O'Connell for this company.
sachel1sta 10y ago
Your text is nearly white within 19 minutes of being posted. It's obvious HackerNews is not safe--from certain people.
- dang 10y ago
  It's plainly off-topic, and the worst kind of off-topic tangent: the kind that makes a thread even more generically political.
  - jsprogrammer 10y ago
    CEO of Google emails being used in a court of law to secure a negative outcome for Google, is off-topic in a sub thread about the CEO of Google being able to edit Google emails and other data? Did Eric challenge the authenticity of the emails? I've never heard him do so. I now understand why you couldn't specify in what way my comment was "off-topic".
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  And was supplanted with a fake news story about a fictional character?
- kps 10y ago
  More likely it's because the comment has nothing to do with editing users' content — unless it's meant to suggest that someone else faked Eric Schmidt's email (from the time 5+ years ago when he was CEO of Google) to incriminate him.
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    The broader topic is about some golang moderators not wanting to associate with a company because of that company's actions. The downvoted comment simply extends the reasoning to other areas. It's pretty relevant imo.
  - jsprogrammer 10y ago
    The comment has everything to do with editing content. Schmidt was effectively convicted on the content of his emails. I don't think Schmidt was able to edit an email used in that case. It is a positive example of what the poster I responded to was claiming. Additionally, this CEO (now of Alphabet) has continued to engage in seemingly illegal behavior over Google email. I'm not aware of Eric disputing any of these allegations, even though I have confronted him on them multiple times.
    - qb45 10y ago
      Then you should have made it clear what you meant because your post looks like a completely offtopic rant.
      - jsprogrammer 10y ago
        Perhaps you thought that. Others saw something different.
    - zardeh 10y ago
      What illegal behavior is that?
    - kps 10y ago
      > Additionally, this CEO (now of Alphabet) You seem to be mixing up Eric Schmidt and Larry Page. People have seen them in the same room together.
dang 10y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13037590 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13037590 and marked it off-topic.
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  Wow, you're back and altering my content again? How is the sub thread not relevant? It was a direct, positive example of what the person I replied to claimed. At least make an actual claim, dang. Edit: and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13037766 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13037766 still stands #comedysite
  - dang 10y ago
    Since many attempts to convince you to use this site as intended have failed, we've banned your account. If you don't want it to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

hga 10y ago

More like acquiescing to Apple's demands that Google do that, and they did quite actively, but not at his/Google's initiation. Which doesn't change the crime that much. The greater point is that the CEO of a company with digital user assets, let me call them, can be thoroughly evil, while company policy and enforcement keeps his hands from directly tampering with those assets. Silently changing someone's postings is one of the vilest betrayals of trust a platform can commit, the only worst I can think of is forging new ones out of whole cloth, and if that happens without major changes resulting in the company, that says a great deal about it as a whole, and whether you should have any dealings with it, especially seeing as such assets have been used to criminally convict people, and specifically one Rowan O'Connell for this company.

sachel1sta 10y ago

Your text is nearly white within 19 minutes of being posted. It's obvious HackerNews is not safe--from certain people.

dang 10y ago
It's plainly off-topic, and the worst kind of off-topic tangent: the kind that makes a thread even more generically political.
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  CEO of Google emails being used in a court of law to secure a negative outcome for Google, is off-topic in a sub thread about the CEO of Google being able to edit Google emails and other data? Did Eric challenge the authenticity of the emails? I've never heard him do so. I now understand why you couldn't specify in what way my comment was "off-topic".
jsprogrammer 10y ago
And was supplanted with a fake news story about a fictional character?
kps 10y ago
More likely it's because the comment has nothing to do with editing users' content — unless it's meant to suggest that someone else faked Eric Schmidt's email (from the time 5+ years ago when he was CEO of Google) to incriminate him.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  The broader topic is about some golang moderators not wanting to associate with a company because of that company's actions. The downvoted comment simply extends the reasoning to other areas. It's pretty relevant imo.
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  The comment has everything to do with editing content. Schmidt was effectively convicted on the content of his emails. I don't think Schmidt was able to edit an email used in that case. It is a positive example of what the poster I responded to was claiming. Additionally, this CEO (now of Alphabet) has continued to engage in seemingly illegal behavior over Google email. I'm not aware of Eric disputing any of these allegations, even though I have confronted him on them multiple times.
  - qb45 10y ago
    Then you should have made it clear what you meant because your post looks like a completely offtopic rant.
    - jsprogrammer 10y ago
      Perhaps you thought that. Others saw something different.
  - zardeh 10y ago
    What illegal behavior is that?
  - kps 10y ago
    > Additionally, this CEO (now of Alphabet) You seem to be mixing up Eric Schmidt and Larry Page. People have seen them in the same room together.

dang 10y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13037590 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13037590 and marked it off-topic.

jsprogrammer 10y ago
Wow, you're back and altering my content again? How is the sub thread not relevant? It was a direct, positive example of what the person I replied to claimed. At least make an actual claim, dang. Edit: and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13037766 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13037766 still stands #comedysite
- dang 10y ago
  Since many attempts to convince you to use this site as intended have failed, we've banned your account. If you don't want it to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.