5 ms·

I don't get it. Google is under no "obligation" to fund something. Sure, using funding a way to convince people to do things is shitty, but at the same time, yo

I don't get it. Google is under no "obligation" to fund something. Sure, using funding a way to convince people to do things is shitty, but at the same time, you can't really make someone fund something they don't want to. It's not like it's their duty to keep funding New America. And honestly, we should not trust something funded by X to be unbiased towards X anyway, that's just common sense.

SFJulie 9y ago
So what is ycombinator biased towards? Unless you have not noticed a lot of news are being censored systematically on HN when they touch certain topics, some of them is giving SV/IT a bad PR, or poor work conditions in IT , political POV... references: http://hckrnews.com/ http://hckrnews.com/ (use all button) http://hnrankings.info/ http://hnrankings.info/
- Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
  If you want more evidence of HN censorship, I maintain a website that tracks title changes, deleted posts, and score/comments/rank over time here: http://hn.0x2237.club http://hn.0x2237.club There's definitely solid evidence of censorship, at some point I'm going to collect the main points into a blog post.
  - kikimaru 9y ago
    ... huh. TIL
staticelf 9y ago
The issue is that they try to use convince people that monopolies are bad except when they are doing it. It's generally considered bad taste and hypocritical to preach something and not abide to what you preach yourself. In my country a lot of media people are for example writing about embracing immigration and slander anyone who disagrees but studies have shown that the people who work in these media outlets does not live in areas affected negatively by increased immigration to a large extent. There is a reason why people hate that kind of shit and that's because it stinks and is used by people in power to shit on people without power.
- msl09 9y ago
  >The issue is that they try to use convince people that monopolies are bad except when they are doing it. Can you provide some examples?
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    Eric Schmidt never objected when the Open Markets program posted about Amazon's monopoly: https://www.newamerica.org/open-markets/ https://www.newamerica.org/open-markets/
    - ehsankia 9y ago
      Sure, but realistically, why would he? What would be bad is if he had specifically asked or funded them to make that post. But you can't blindly assume malintent and hypothesize that Google has been funding New America so they can bash on other monopolies. There is no proof of that, that's just you assuming the worst.
      - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        ... I never assumed that. I was just providing an example of what the parent asked for. Your conclusions are your own.
- kybernetikos 9y ago
  > studies have shown that the people who work in these media outlets does not live in areas affected negatively by increased immigration to a large extent. Lots of people who dislike immigration also do not live in areas affected negatively by it. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider their views, although it may influence how much weight we want to put towards them when making policy.
  - staticelf 9y ago
    Sure but these people have often times no real power or cannot share their experiences with a massive amount of people like many media outlets easily can do. Unless, they of course, create their own media organisations which is happening in every western country and is the core reason for all this "fake news" which is a term ironically often most used by old mass-media that themselves heavily rely on half-truths at best.
DennisP 9y ago
The part about funding is just a throwaway comment at the end. The complaint is that they effectively scrubbed from the internet an article about themselves they didn't like. (And that article was about Google effectively threatening to lower search rankings on publishers who didn't add +1 buttons, which is a similar complaint.)

SFJulie 9y ago

So what is ycombinator biased towards? Unless you have not noticed a lot of news are being censored systematically on HN when they touch certain topics, some of them is giving SV/IT a bad PR, or poor work conditions in IT , political POV... references: http://hckrnews.com/ http://hckrnews.com/ (use all button) http://hnrankings.info/ http://hnrankings.info/

Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
If you want more evidence of HN censorship, I maintain a website that tracks title changes, deleted posts, and score/comments/rank over time here: http://hn.0x2237.club http://hn.0x2237.club There's definitely solid evidence of censorship, at some point I'm going to collect the main points into a blog post.
- kikimaru 9y ago
  ... huh. TIL

staticelf 9y ago

The issue is that they try to use convince people that monopolies are bad except when they are doing it. It's generally considered bad taste and hypocritical to preach something and not abide to what you preach yourself. In my country a lot of media people are for example writing about embracing immigration and slander anyone who disagrees but studies have shown that the people who work in these media outlets does not live in areas affected negatively by increased immigration to a large extent. There is a reason why people hate that kind of shit and that's because it stinks and is used by people in power to shit on people without power.

msl09 9y ago
>The issue is that they try to use convince people that monopolies are bad except when they are doing it. Can you provide some examples?
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  Eric Schmidt never objected when the Open Markets program posted about Amazon's monopoly: https://www.newamerica.org/open-markets/ https://www.newamerica.org/open-markets/
  - ehsankia 9y ago
    Sure, but realistically, why would he? What would be bad is if he had specifically asked or funded them to make that post. But you can't blindly assume malintent and hypothesize that Google has been funding New America so they can bash on other monopolies. There is no proof of that, that's just you assuming the worst.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      ... I never assumed that. I was just providing an example of what the parent asked for. Your conclusions are your own.
kybernetikos 9y ago
> studies have shown that the people who work in these media outlets does not live in areas affected negatively by increased immigration to a large extent. Lots of people who dislike immigration also do not live in areas affected negatively by it. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider their views, although it may influence how much weight we want to put towards them when making policy.
- staticelf 9y ago
  Sure but these people have often times no real power or cannot share their experiences with a massive amount of people like many media outlets easily can do. Unless, they of course, create their own media organisations which is happening in every western country and is the core reason for all this "fake news" which is a term ironically often most used by old mass-media that themselves heavily rely on half-truths at best.

DennisP 9y ago

The part about funding is just a throwaway comment at the end. The complaint is that they effectively scrubbed from the internet an article about themselves they didn't like. (And that article was about Google effectively threatening to lower search rankings on publishers who didn't add +1 buttons, which is a similar complaint.)