4 ms·

This can only be fixed by the FTC, yes. But it's against Google's interests for antitrust law to come back into vogue, so they've put a lot of money into gettin

This can only be fixed by the FTC, yes. But it's against Google's interests for antitrust law to come back into vogue, so they've put a lot of money into getting folks on board with the FCC, which doesn't have jurisdiction over Google, being in charge. In other words: Protecting Net Neutrality through the FCC is not politically stable. We have clear proof of that. Google just wants that because it's protecting its own interests over that of the public at large. "Don't be evil." -- Apparently that doesn't include self interest to the detriment of the public.

jrs95 9y ago
Their motto may as well just be “Be evil” now imo. It seems like they’re on the wrong side of basically every issue.
- YaxelPerez 9y ago
  "Make money", perhaps?
  - em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
    gEvil Corp. Being a publically traded company, they have a duty to make money for their shareholders (I think but am not sure that duty might even be legal). If they were a Social Benefit Corp, then they wouldn't have such a duty, and so could choose to not make money when doing so would cause evil.
    - Endy 9y ago
      And because Alphabet Inc. (GOOGL) is trading at like $1K/share, it's out of most people's hands to even be eligible for the shareholders' meeting. On top of that, the float is almost 603 million shares, and ~81% are held by institutions rather than private investors. ~10% of the company is held by "people" rather than other companies - not enough to make a real change happen in terms of corporate policy. If you could manage to get a coalition together to buy even 51% of the float (~$3.75B), not only would that represent a heck of a lot of money invested, but you could potentially step in and change the direction of the company as shareholders. Big problem: that's not realistic.
      - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        Isn't nearly all voting power of Google still owned by the founding folks/executives? Non-voting shares has become a big thing these days to prevent shareholders from affecting company direction.
        Endy 9y ago
        Basically, but there's a wonderful thing called a short sale. If tons of people sell Google short, or threaten to do so, it's very likely have an effect. Also, live long and prosper.
    - jrs95 9y ago
      Even as a publicly traded company I think that making money is a necessity but not really the primary focus for them now. They’ve gotten to a point where power is the most valuable thing, even when it comes to their ability to make money. This probably has something to do with their monolithic culture and strong political orientation.

jrs95 9y ago

Their motto may as well just be “Be evil” now imo. It seems like they’re on the wrong side of basically every issue.

YaxelPerez 9y ago
"Make money", perhaps?
- em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
  gEvil Corp. Being a publically traded company, they have a duty to make money for their shareholders (I think but am not sure that duty might even be legal). If they were a Social Benefit Corp, then they wouldn't have such a duty, and so could choose to not make money when doing so would cause evil.
  - Endy 9y ago
    And because Alphabet Inc. (GOOGL) is trading at like $1K/share, it's out of most people's hands to even be eligible for the shareholders' meeting. On top of that, the float is almost 603 million shares, and ~81% are held by institutions rather than private investors. ~10% of the company is held by "people" rather than other companies - not enough to make a real change happen in terms of corporate policy. If you could manage to get a coalition together to buy even 51% of the float (~$3.75B), not only would that represent a heck of a lot of money invested, but you could potentially step in and change the direction of the company as shareholders. Big problem: that's not realistic.
    - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
      Isn't nearly all voting power of Google still owned by the founding folks/executives? Non-voting shares has become a big thing these days to prevent shareholders from affecting company direction.
      - Endy 9y ago
        Basically, but there's a wonderful thing called a short sale. If tons of people sell Google short, or threaten to do so, it's very likely have an effect. Also, live long and prosper.
  - jrs95 9y ago
    Even as a publicly traded company I think that making money is a necessity but not really the primary focus for them now. They’ve gotten to a point where power is the most valuable thing, even when it comes to their ability to make money. This probably has something to do with their monolithic culture and strong political orientation.