4 ms·

Amazing comment, you somehow manage to give Thiel excuses ("it's the way it is") and shift the topic to Google's lobbying at the same time.

rdtsc 9y ago
> Amazing comment Thanks! > you somehow manage to give Thiel excuses And what is he guilty of again? > and shift the topic to Google's lobbying The article is about Google and lobbying, so pointing out what Google is doing is interesting. Besides your complement and meta-comment what do you think about the article?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- VeejayRampay 9y ago
  No one is saying Peter Thiel is guilty of anything, but the article is about the fact that he gave money to officials probing Google's activities, which seems, if not illegal (not familiar enough with American law to judge on that), at least highly immoral. My comment was simply underlining the fact that this is never mentioned once in your comment, which ends up sounding a lot like basic whatboutism and, as such, like some form of blame-shifting. I understand that Google's behavior is no better, they are investing a lot of money to steer legislation towards their financial sweet spot, but then any discussion about anything is moot, because someone else is doing it. When Bloomberg writes an article about Google's shady business, then by all means, let's discuss that at length. As for the article, I found it was a tad light, I would've liked more details about the reason why Peter Thiel would care so much about Google and hurting Google specifically that he would do that. Some analysis about the sordid influence of money on politics as a whole would have been nice as well, it does seem from my remote French perspective that the relationship between money and elected office in the US has taken a turn for the worst in the past 5 to 10 years.
  - rdtsc 9y ago
    > No one is saying Peter Thiel is guilty of anything, but the article is about the fact that he gave money to officials probing Google's activities, which seems, if not illegal (not familiar enough with American law to judge on that), at least highly immoral. I was trying to point out that even though it is immoral, that's how things are done in US. The article went out of its way to paint this as some kind of freaky evil thing, even threw "Trump" in there for a good measure a few times. But sadly, that's how business is done. This kind of lobbying has a pretty good ROI as others pointed below. It would be better and it could be worse. It could all be completely hidden. Here at least we are talking about it, they have to disclose it and so on. It could a secret bank transfer to a cousin who lives in a tax haven, which is how "business" is often done in other countries. > which ends up sounding a lot like basic whatboutism and, as such, like some form of blame-shifting. What he was doing is not that unusual. In other words I didn't see much blame to start with. There is blame to be shared across the whole system of influencing and buying power, and is not really isolated to Thiel. Single Google was mentioned, I used them as an example. > When Bloomberg writes an article about Google's shady business, then by all means, let's discuss that at length. Like you said, the article is a bit light on details and I think Google lobbying and influencing exceeding those of what we traditionally think as "evil" companies is an interesting side conversation. > about the reason why Peter Thiel would care so much about Google and hurting Google specifically Well now we are talking. Not just Google but Amazon as well. Officially he talks about being a libertarian and he thinks those two companies are huge monopolies, they control what is bought, sold and read, searched and seen. But he is also an investor in Facebook and was founder of PayPal which is now part of eBay. Those two companies compete with Google and Amazon so it seems he also has purely financial reasons to support some companies and lobby against others. Also I am personally worried about Google as well and I think many still believe it is this cutesy startup-y little underdog so pointing out that it lobbies and controls the government to a greater degree than even traditionally "evil" companies. > relationship between money and elected office in the US has taken a turn for the worst in the past 5 to 10 years. Agree. A clear manifestation of that is people voting in candidates like Trump and Sanders - a TV personality or an unknown old white socialist guy from Vermont. Even though traditional candidates have had billions more in funding and the backing of large media conglomerates, Wall Street and so on.

rdtsc 9y ago

> Amazing comment Thanks! > you somehow manage to give Thiel excuses And what is he guilty of again? > and shift the topic to Google's lobbying The article is about Google and lobbying, so pointing out what Google is doing is interesting. Besides your complement and meta-comment what do you think about the article?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
VeejayRampay 9y ago
No one is saying Peter Thiel is guilty of anything, but the article is about the fact that he gave money to officials probing Google's activities, which seems, if not illegal (not familiar enough with American law to judge on that), at least highly immoral. My comment was simply underlining the fact that this is never mentioned once in your comment, which ends up sounding a lot like basic whatboutism and, as such, like some form of blame-shifting. I understand that Google's behavior is no better, they are investing a lot of money to steer legislation towards their financial sweet spot, but then any discussion about anything is moot, because someone else is doing it. When Bloomberg writes an article about Google's shady business, then by all means, let's discuss that at length. As for the article, I found it was a tad light, I would've liked more details about the reason why Peter Thiel would care so much about Google and hurting Google specifically that he would do that. Some analysis about the sordid influence of money on politics as a whole would have been nice as well, it does seem from my remote French perspective that the relationship between money and elected office in the US has taken a turn for the worst in the past 5 to 10 years.
- rdtsc 9y ago
  > No one is saying Peter Thiel is guilty of anything, but the article is about the fact that he gave money to officials probing Google's activities, which seems, if not illegal (not familiar enough with American law to judge on that), at least highly immoral. I was trying to point out that even though it is immoral, that's how things are done in US. The article went out of its way to paint this as some kind of freaky evil thing, even threw "Trump" in there for a good measure a few times. But sadly, that's how business is done. This kind of lobbying has a pretty good ROI as others pointed below. It would be better and it could be worse. It could all be completely hidden. Here at least we are talking about it, they have to disclose it and so on. It could a secret bank transfer to a cousin who lives in a tax haven, which is how "business" is often done in other countries. > which ends up sounding a lot like basic whatboutism and, as such, like some form of blame-shifting. What he was doing is not that unusual. In other words I didn't see much blame to start with. There is blame to be shared across the whole system of influencing and buying power, and is not really isolated to Thiel. Single Google was mentioned, I used them as an example. > When Bloomberg writes an article about Google's shady business, then by all means, let's discuss that at length. Like you said, the article is a bit light on details and I think Google lobbying and influencing exceeding those of what we traditionally think as "evil" companies is an interesting side conversation. > about the reason why Peter Thiel would care so much about Google and hurting Google specifically Well now we are talking. Not just Google but Amazon as well. Officially he talks about being a libertarian and he thinks those two companies are huge monopolies, they control what is bought, sold and read, searched and seen. But he is also an investor in Facebook and was founder of PayPal which is now part of eBay. Those two companies compete with Google and Amazon so it seems he also has purely financial reasons to support some companies and lobby against others. Also I am personally worried about Google as well and I think many still believe it is this cutesy startup-y little underdog so pointing out that it lobbies and controls the government to a greater degree than even traditionally "evil" companies. > relationship between money and elected office in the US has taken a turn for the worst in the past 5 to 10 years. Agree. A clear manifestation of that is people voting in candidates like Trump and Sanders - a TV personality or an unknown old white socialist guy from Vermont. Even though traditional candidates have had billions more in funding and the backing of large media conglomerates, Wall Street and so on.