32 ms·

Sergey Brin joins protest against immigration order at SFO

• markwaldron 10y ago
  It's great to see someone with this much influence joining the masses to protest these injustices. I understand these companies have shareholders and tend to avoid politically charged topics, but in this case, it affects not only Google's employees but people all over the country.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
• gagmaker 10y ago
  it is sad to see someone with this much influence and intellect but yet an IDIOT. What he said is there is no difference between refugees and illegal immigrants. He implies you can break a law and get away with it. Then he shows he don't give a fuck what this immigration order is all about, it is obvious he didn't read it! He either is being manipulated or he is indeed an idiot.
  • teraflop 10y ago
    In case you weren't paying attention, the main reason for this round of protests is that Trump's executive order is causing legal permanent residents to be detained in US airports and/or deported from the country.
    • pavanky 10y ago
      Not just permanent residents, it also affects legal visa holders as far as I can tell.
      • uiri 10y ago
        A visa does not guarantee entry into the country. It is a permit to travel to and to enter the United States. The citizens of certain countries - such as Canada - do not need to obtain a visa in order to enter the US. The Visa Waiver Program waives the visa application process for tourists and short term business visitors from a separate list of countries. Regardless of whether or not a visa is needed, the border guard has final say on whether or not a foreign citizen is allowed to enter the country.
        • seanmcdirmid 10y ago
          Yes, but it is highly implied that citizens and permanent residents will get through without trouble.
          • mynameisvlad 10y ago
            There is no such implication for green card holders. In fact, DHS has said the exact opposite: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/28/airports-us-immigration-ban-muslim-countries-trump https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/28/airports-us-... Citizens have freedom of entry into the country, there is no way they could be barred.
            • seanmcdirmid 10y ago
              They can be barred as dual citizens. Green card holders are not exempt from the order as per advice from the whitehouse itself. The DHS initially thought they would be exempt, but were later corrected by Trump.
              • uiri 10y ago
                A US citizen cannot be barred from entering the US. That is one of the key rights of citizenship. A US citizen is also required to present their US passport when entering the US - even if they are a dual citizen and hold another passport. The whole thing about dual citizens refers to citizens of the banned countries who also hold citizenship of a third country - i.e. one that is not the US and one that is not banned. e.g. an Iraqi-Canadian who presents a Canadian passport is still barred from the US by Trump's order.
    • gagmaker 10y ago
      really? that's bad. but it can be fixed. and if you weren't paying attention, sanctuary cities let go into public thousands criminal offenders...
      • sxcurry 10y ago
        Did you hear that lie on Fox or make it up yourself?
      • facetube 10y ago
        Citation needed. So-called "sanctuary cities" are merely complying with the standard of law.
        • gagmaker 10y ago
          here you go, even fro liberal media: http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/03/us/san-francisco-killing-suspect-immigrant-deported/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/03/us/san-francisco-killing-suspe... > So-called "sanctuary cities" are merely complying with the standard of law. Bingo! Do you like the law that let criminal offender to go free? I certainly don't. And by the way I am a legal immigrant.
          • lern_too_spel 10y ago
            You're about 1,999 short of "thousands."
      • geofft 10y ago
        Can you please stop saying "if you weren't paying attention" when you were the only person in this thread not paying attention? Us leftists are willing to work with Trump voters and bridge the divide that wounds this nation. We're willing to listen to concerns about your jobs and communities that we clearly failed to listen to in this election cycle. But you have to be willing to say "I was wrong about Trump, I wasn't paying attention."
    • oldfartspeaks 10y ago
      https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title8/html/USCODE-2011-title8-chap12-subchapII-partII-sec1182.htm https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title8/html/USCODE... 8 U.S.C. 1182 - INADMISSIBLE ALIENS (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
      • facetube 10y ago
        https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration-ban-is-illegal.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigratio...
      • fapjacks 10y ago
        Right, and herein lies perhaps the best thing to come out of a Trump presidency: People obviously aren't prepared to discover exactly how much power has been slowly conglomerated and consolidated into the office of President. This stuff didn't just suddenly happen with Trump. He's just using the laws this country gave him. And perhaps there is a contradictory law somewhere on the books from fifty years ago. That doesn't mean much, because the kid going to MIT can't return to school after visiting family right now. The law might get sorted out by the courts later, but right now? Maybe after this, there won't be as much apathy about what's made law in the United States.
• tptacek 10y ago
  Google employees were very heavily represented on the Never Again pledge a few weeks ago, more than any big tech company. I've been able to talk to several Googlers since then, several of whom are now directly involved with Tech Solidarity. Google takes a lot of shit, and some of it is probably deserved, but there seems clearly to be a moral core to the people working there. 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.
  • panarky 10y ago
    Contrast Google's approach with Uber's. 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. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13510054 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13510054
    • alphonsegaston 10y ago
      Uber also sent scabs to break up the taxi strike in support of the refugees at JFK. Even shut off surge pricing. EDIT: Including link to news story as proof: https://www.buzzfeed.com/coralewis/deleteuber-is-trending-after-taxi-strike-against-trumps-refu?utm_term=.kta3nNB8ra#.cvN8mVDBJ4 https://www.buzzfeed.com/coralewis/deleteuber-is-trending-af...
      • nrjdhsbsid 10y ago
        Jesus that's low. It's hard to even imagine a company making a political statement like that. Fuck Uber, the new Comcast
        • skj 10y ago
          How is this "low"? I'm genuinely confused here.
• fowlerpower 10y ago
  Well at least people are pushing back. What was starting to worry me is that many of the top CEOs were all kissing Trumps ass as to who can bring back more jobs. They were stumbling over themselves, "we are bringing 10000 jobs in the next 2 years". There needs to be a lot of vocal people against this, immigrants are one the weakest groups in society. Trump just deomstrated and confirmed this. What I don't get, and maybe someone can explain it, why isn't this un-constitutional? It feels like banning people, people who are perfectly legal not citizens but still legal, based on their religion is against the constitution. Am I missing something? Wasn't this country started by people looking to escape religious persecution?
  • pavanky 10y ago
    ACLU is challenging this. Read the thread about a stay order from a Federal Judge: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13511348 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13511348
    • gagmaker 10y ago
      how ironic! Brin's parents escaped communists from Soviet Russia and his son 35 year later marches with the communist-founded organization...
      • deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  • jusq2 10y ago
    Yes you are missing a lot. But you aren't alone. Everyone else is too. This is becoming a characteristic feature of the internet. There is huge information asymmetry at play here that just cannot be communicated through the media, social media or a hn post. Or as I would say to a second grader, if you want to understand things your cousin in college is talking about put in 10 years of work. If the internet gives you the impression that everything that you can't make sense of is one ted talk/one reddit ELI5 post away, that's just wrong. This expectation has to change. Otherwise we end up with more and more people who don't understand the work it takes to know anything deeply.
• ziszis 10y ago
  Of the five largest tech companies in the world, the CEOs of four of them have come out against the Executive Order targeting specific immigrants: GOOG/MSFT/FB/AAPL. AMZN and Jeff Bezos have strangely been absent even though he was the most critical pre-election.
  • CamelCaseName 10y ago
    Any thoughts on why Bezos abstained from comment?
    • loafa 10y ago
      He already bought the WaPo as his personal blog.
  • adventured 10y ago
    Not to mention the man Bezos regards as his father, Miguel Bezos, was an immigrant from Cuba. Bezos is a pretty quiet individual in general, he always has been (but if you do some digging, he and his wife are active politically behind the scenes, giving money etc to causes they support). If you compared his public activities around interviews, it's a small fraction of that of other CEOs over his tenure. I'm not surprised he isn't saying much yet, but I'd bet on them issuing a statement at some point, once they sort out the political risks (also Bezos with Blue Origin, which is dependent on Trump and the Republicans now in various ways).
  • potatosoup 10y ago
    Bezos bought WaPo and that has been his anti-Trump mouthpiece for the past months. Doesn't need to make a separate statement.
    • pg314 10y ago
      Do you have any evidence Bezos is influencing the editorial direction of the WaPo? All statements I have seen of people working for or having worked for the WaPo say that there is a clear separation between Bezos and the editorial board.
• akhilcacharya 10y ago
  Relevant part of his background [0] >They formally applied for their exit visa in September 1978, and as a result his father was "promptly fired". For related reasons, his mother also had to leave her job. For the next eight months, without any steady income, they were forced to take on temporary jobs as they waited, afraid their request would be denied as it was for many refuseniks. During this time his parents shared responsibility for looking after him and his father taught himself computer programming. In May 1979, they were granted their official exit visas and were allowed to leave the country.[12] At an interview in October 2000, Brin said, "I know the hard times that my parents went through there and am very thankful that I was brought to the States."[17] >In the summer of 1990, a few weeks before his 17th birthday, his father led a group of high school math students, including Sergey, on a two-week exchange program to the Soviet Union. His roommate on the trip was future Carnegie Mellon University computer science professor John Stamper. As Brin recalls, the trip awakened his childhood fear of authority and he remembered that "his first impulse on confronting Soviet oppression had been to throw pebbles at a police car." Malseed adds, "On the second day of the trip, while the group toured a sanatorium in the countryside near Moscow, Brin took his father aside, looked him in the eye and said, 'Thank you for taking us all out of Russia.'" [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Brin#Early_life_and_education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Brin#Early_life_and_edu...
  • rat87 10y ago
    I'm guessing that Brin like me came to the US as a refugee under the lautenberg amendment (which applied to religious minorities in the USSR, mostly jews, also protestants, ect.) Before the USSR collapsed people had to first go to neutral Austria to apply. Afterwards you didn't. In 2004 Iranian Religious Minorities(Christians, Bahai'i, Jews, Zoroastrians) were added, in the last few days the Austrian office shut down (for how long?) seemingly leaving these Iranians high and dry. http://www.sfgate.com/news/world/article/Trump-s-refugee-clampdown-stops-Iranian-path-10889096.php http://www.sfgate.com/news/world/article/Trump-s-refugee-cla...
  • s_kilk 10y ago
    It's interesting that these snivelling alt-right shitheels have never lived under an authoritarian regime, yet they're all for it. But those who had actually lived under such conditions reject it like they would a flesh-eating virus.
• robotresearcher 10y ago
  The constitution only applies to citizens. Edit: apparently I was mistaken. It applies to 'the people' of the US, which is anyone with 'substantial connection' to the US and under US jurisdiction. Green card holders would seem to be pretty clearly of 'the people' then. Of course, it's a damn shame to treat any legal immigrant or legitimate asylum seeker this way. Seems to be absolutely against the long standing traditions of the country.
  • Epenthesis 10y ago
    That's a... heterodox interpretation of things. The vast majority of the constitution makes no distinction between citizens and non-citizens subject to American jurisdiction (the exceptions, of course, being for voting and holding office).
    • sb057 10y ago
      Shouldn't non-citizen foreign nationals be granted the right to keep and bare arms, then?
      • philangist 10y ago
        I'm pretty sure we are - https://blogs.valpo.edu/law/does-the-second-amendment-apply-to-non-citizens/ https://blogs.valpo.edu/law/does-the-second-amendment-apply-...
      • dvt 10y ago
        They are. My father owned several guns (we used to go hunting) before we were naturalized (in 2007). I think he owned a .30-06 rifle even before we had our green cards.
        • knz 10y ago
          I believe the 4473 form for transferring a firearm asks residency status and requires an alien number if you are not a citizen. I'm 99% sure PR status is required...
• potatosoup 10y ago
  Where were all these millionaires and billionaires when we were droning people in some of these countries? They all donated to Clinton's election campaign and under her watch as Secretary of State we dropped thousands of bombs. They supported the pro-war candidate. Why is restricting our borders considered so inhumane as to cause an Internet-wide outcry, while killing people for years hadn't?
  • blazespin 10y ago
    Well, at least they're doing something. I agree though, it's a horrible crime to see how nobody expresses any outrage at some of the horrible things the US has done before. Like all those 100s of thousands of people who died in Iraq.
  • Swizec 10y ago
    SFO is much closer than Syria. Anyone can go protest, anyone can go take pictures and post on social media. The trouble that strikes at home always feels more important than the trouble that strikes far away. Many people have friends who are immigrants or are immigrants themselves. Few people have friends living in those countries. What worries me personally is what if this border closing stuff escalates further and further. I'm here on a visa and my country is not on the list, but who knows what they might come up with. Especially considering the rumors that they're asking questions about allegiance to the regime and checking social media. Hello future border agent waves
    • potatosoup 10y ago
      (deleted)
      • robryan 10y ago
        Not supporting Clinton would have been effectively supporting Trump. Wouldn't it be greater hypocrisy to support Trump then protest?
      • grzm 10y ago
        Please stop. It's not a binary issue, but unfortunately the elections are effectively a binary choice. And sometimes it takes a while for people to wake up. Encourage them to be consistent. Continually calling out hypocrisy isn't going to make people more likely to agree with you. Quite the opposite. Do you think the Executive Order should be opposed? If so, let people feel their oats now and engage. Once engaged, it's even more likely they'll be politically reflective and active in the future. If you're fine with the Executive Order, fine, but please engage more constructively and civilly.
• rankhyprocrisy 10y ago
  This is rank hypocrisy of the highest order! Where was Sergey Brin in 2011 when the Obama administration banned refugees from Iraq for 6 months?! > As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets. One Iraqi who had aided American troops was assassinated before his refugee application could be processed, because of the immigration delays, two U.S. officials said. In 2011, fewer than 10,000 Iraqis were resettled as refugees in the U.S., half the number from the year before, State Department statistics show. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-te...
  • ftrflyr 10y ago
    Yes! See my comment. They were all silent.
    • tacomonstrous 10y ago
      >They were all silent. And how precisely do you know this for a fact?
  • gdulli 10y ago
    Since Obama clearly isn't motivated by xenophobia, Brin had no reason to distrust the reasons for it because he's sophisticated enough to understand context. The Obama administration paused the program temporarily in response to a specific weakness in it, see the article you linked. That's reasonable. Trump is ideologically opposed to accepting refugees. Brin understands the difference, do you?
    • gagmaker 10y ago
      LOL you obama ass-kissers are more then laughable :))
      • 10y ago
• ftrflyr 10y ago
  You all are aware that the past 6 U.S. presidents have done this sort of thing...right? Obama last did it in 2011. The hypocrisy here is that because Trump did it, it is wrong. We are a nation of laws and in order to maintain law and order, we must follow those laws. The minute tech companies (let's not be obtuse here, corporations are in the business of making money and appeasing shareholders) decides they are either for or against certain laws, well...you have anarchy. This has nothing to do with denying rights to immigrants and everything to do with the far lefts disproval of the elected president of the United States.
  • gdulli 10y ago
    How can you not see the difference between ending the program due to institutionalized xenophobia and pausing it temporarily in order to work on its safety? Are you being obtuse?
    • ftrflyr 10y ago
      No. But you clearly are.
  • chime 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence Obama Admin banned processing applications from Iraqi refugees during a 6 month period [1]. They did not ban approved refugees from entering the US. Obama Admin never banned permanent residents aka greencard-holders married to US citizens from re-entering the US because they held Iranian passports. The current executive order does. Doesn't matter if they are completing a PhD in Computer Science at Princeton and flew to Canada for a conference. They can now be refused entry for not breaking any laws. The smartest, most-hardworking immigrants and non-immigrant student-visa holders will instead choose Switzerland, Germany, and other places because of blanket bans like this. 1. http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18/the-obama-administration-stopped-processing-iraq-refugee-requests-for-6-months-in-2011/ http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18/the-obama-administration...
  • daxorid 10y ago
    Give up. Dissent from the hivemind is not tolerated here. Disassociate from all YC portfolio companies and move on. It's not worth it.
• ftrflyr 10y ago
  American citizen here: I was denied a entry visa into Paraguay left to be stranded in Brazil. I barely made it to my grandmothers funeral. I had to call the embassy and spend several days in limbo. I understood that I was powerless because I was not a citizen of Brazil nor Paraguay. I wasn't entitled to representation by either country nor would they provide it. I was jailed in Mozambique for refusing to pay a bribe at the border. I did not expect nor receive any special treatment. This is the way things are. I overstayed my visa in Chile by less than 24 hours, was forced to remain at the border between Argentina and Chile for the day and threatened with jail. I did not fight and riot nor protest. Why would I? I need to follow the laws of the country I am in. What we have here is a nation so divided that you have people on the right who are for less government and rule, but respect the rule of law and people on the left who have no regard for the law and demand more regulations and laws. Disappointing
  • tacomonstrous 10y ago
    So your point of comparison for the US are Paraguay, Mozambique and Chile? Also, note that none of the people being detained under his EO right now is actually being accused of breaking the law: if they'd arrived two days ago, they wouldn't have faced any issues at all. So it's unclear to me how your experience informs any aspect of our current predicament.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  • russdill 10y ago
    Your statement vastly confuses me. Because things are laws they are just and moral and you should respect them? That's a really backwards way of thinking.
    • ftrflyr 10y ago
      Vastly? Like the vast reaches of outer space? Wow... Because things are laws is the reason the US has been able to maintain its democracy (constitutional republic) for as long as it has. So yes. Picking and choosing what laws you want to follow based on how popular or pc they are is why Hillary lost and is why we have sanctuary cities and is why welfare wiped out the American family.
• maratd 10y ago
  > Google takes a lot of shit, and some of it is probably deserved, but there seems clearly to be a moral core to the people working there. Where were all these moral people when Obama pulled the same stunt in 2011 and banned Iraqi refugees from entering the country for 6 months? Were they busy signing pledges not to write drone software that bombed the shit out of these same people that they now feel solidarity with? I'm glad they found their "moral core", although it is mildly irritating that only half the country is able to find one at any one time.
  • lern_too_spel 10y ago
    That 2011 Iraqi refugee processing delay was never announced. It only leaked to the press in 2013. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-te... Presumably, those Googlers, like you and the rest of America, didn't even know there was a delay in 2011 and had nothing to protest.
    • NotSammyHagar 10y ago
      I don't think that delay stoped all Iraqi citizens from coming to the us, or people would have noticed. Still, Obama did lots of things I didn't like, such as the unending killing people from the air with drones thing. Yet I wish he was still president, or someone non-crazy. We should hold Obama to task for the things he did that were wrong. Just as we will hold Trump to task.
      • lern_too_spel 10y ago
        Would you have preferred that he kill people from the ground with troops or that he kill people from the sea with cruise missiles? Obama conceded far more to reducing collateral damage than any president in our lifetimes, but some people loudly and continually claimed that he is just as bad as Trump would be. Those people are now finding out what false equivalence means.
        • 10y ago
• johansch 10y ago
  Here's a great photo: https://twitter.com/SmellTheTea/status/825577114871140352 https://twitter.com/SmellTheTea/status/825577114871140352
  • refurb 10y ago
    Love that photo. "Do it for the children!"
• potatosoup 10y ago
  • dang 10y ago
    Personal incivility is not allowed here. Also, please don't use HN primarily for political battle. It looks like you have been, and that's not what this site is for. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13512413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13512413 and marked it off-topic.
• james-watson 10y ago
  Or a highly effective display of virtue signaling.
  • tptacek 10y ago
    Serious question: have you noticed how there's no way to level that accusation without feeling like a jerk? It's because it's hard to accuse someone of doing something good for the wrong reason without behaving like a jerk. It's a sort of intrinsically nihilist position to take. And we laugh when nihilists take a bowling ball to the stomach. Or maybe just when it's Flea. It's very difficult to use the concept of "virtue signaling" as a rhetorical weapon without conceding a whole lot of personal credibility. There's a reason that only a certain strange subset of people, people you probably don't want to associate yourself with, toss that term around casually. I know how patronizing I sound writing this, and I'm sorry, but I swear to Christ I'm serious about the morbid curiosity I hold for people who think "virtue signaling" is some kind of devastating online bon mot.
    • alphonsegaston 10y ago
      It's not at all patronizing. If these people are going to brigade every post about this topic with the same hollow rhetoric, they could at least come up with some alternative phrasing. Since this is Hacker News, they could also even learn how to automate the creation of new pejoratives. Just go read one of the seven "Intro to AI" tutorials posted this week.
      • forgetsusername 10y ago
        >If these people are going to brigade every post about this topic with the same hollow rhetoric I think the "these people" rhetoric you use is worse. The same people who would be enraged at the usage of the term if it was in regards to, say, Muslims, are more than happy to use the term referring to Trump supporters. "These people" don't exist.
    • cronjobber 10y ago
      > "Seriuous question, ...jerk" That, and the black and gray "striping" of whole threads that is now as predictable as it is annoying, is why I have started flagging. Never felt like flagging articles before.
• dredmorbius 10y ago
  I applaud this and very much wish to see more like this. That's from someone who finds plenty of opportunity to criticise Google. Including presently for the company's support of the GOP, now a de-facto fascist party. Yes, I'm aware the situation's a complex one, and Google isn't a garage operation any more. Regardless: thank you, Sergey.
• quakeguy 10y ago
  And so should you, go out on the streets, be heard. Don't be ruled, rule for you.
• mrtree 10y ago
  Google, NSA's corporate branch watching us all, all the time. PEOPLE ARE SHEEP
• known 10y ago
  Inevitable since https://qz.com/889524/the-us-says-oracle-is-encouraging-indians-to-hire-others-indians-and-its-killing-diversity/ https://qz.com/889524/the-us-says-oracle-is-encouraging-indi...
• tn13 10y ago
  Silence of other powerful people today will be remembered by history.
• meshr 10y ago
  Something wrong with this world. I wish it to be vice a versa. Brin should be in the president chair, making America great as Google, and Trump should be outside joining protest against modernization.
  • anjc 10y ago
    Yes, Brin, who campaigns to let in more cheap workers from emerging economies via H1B should be in charge of America.
    • mhneu 10y ago
      Smart workers. America's economy benefits from bringing some of the best brains in the world here. If America screws that up, other countries will be happy to accept smart workers and students.
    • jptman 10y ago
      Google workers.. cheap?
      • anjc 10y ago
        Campaigning for H1B increases means campaigning for them across the board. There have been cases of H1B's effectively being slaves in some companies.
        • RealityVoid 10y ago
          I find your position disingenuous. When people bring up H1B = slaves they don't care about the poor immigrant's low wage, they care about the indirect impact they would have on their salaries. I, for one, would(or would have before Trump) gladly worked even for 66000 $/year in the US, considering I'm currently making 1/5th of that in my home country. And it would be advantageous for me and would not see myself as a slave - people go there using H1B because it makes sense financially. And there you go, saying you're against H1B because you want to protect those people from what they want to do? The argument doesn't make sense! Just say already you want to protect your wages and don't hide behind "good will".
• kareldonk 10y ago
  This is what statism looks like. Hopefully people learn the right lessons quickly now. Statism is enslavement. Google it.
• missbit 10y ago
  Jack, take that twitter account away from Trump. OK, this doesn't have much to do with Brin. Just saying.
• jarsin 10y ago
  When Sergey is not illegally conspiring to keep engineers wages down he is sticking up for the little guy. A true man of the people!
  • dang 10y ago
    Please don't pour fuel on flamewars. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13512254 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13512254 and marked it off-topic.