3 ms·

Because Google/FB/etc. also run their own PACs. Follow @pinboard on Twitter for nice juxtapositions of the "we want to be neutral" language of a lot of the pl

Because Google/FB/etc. also run their own PACs. Follow @pinboard on Twitter for nice juxtapositions of the "we want to be neutral" language of a lot of the platforms, versus where they're putting their money. Example: https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1026992202952536064 https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1026992202952536064

ma2rten 8y ago
This is interesting! I work at Google, but I didn't know that Google has a PAC. It's actually funded by employee contributions and it's aim is to support an open internet. https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00428623 https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00428623 They lobby for net neutrality, patent reform, immigration reform and similar issues. This page has more information about Google's political activities in general: https://www.google.com/publicpolicy/transparency.html https://www.google.com/publicpolicy/transparency.html I think Google is much more transparent about this than other companies.
- ubernostrum 8y ago
  You may want to learn more about Google's PAC. They donate to some not-that-great people, and it's hard to say "open internet" justifies that. https://donationsfrom.tech/google https://donationsfrom.tech/google And if you dig into your own link you'll see that.
  - ma2rten 8y ago
    I saw that and I don't see an issue. Money (unfortunately) influences politics in the US and the best way to influence it is to give across the political spectrum.
    - ubernostrum 8y ago
      This is the problem with automated rule-based decision-making. Of course Google relies on it, because Google is existentially committed to the idea that this can solve any problem that ever has existed or ever will exist. But you have to ask yourself whether single-issue political action has a history of consistently producing good results (spoiler: it doesn't). If Google really wanted to, they could find plenty of candidates who support the single issue Google cares about and are also generally decent people; it's not like there's only been one such candidate in the entire history of the universe, as you seem to be implying. But Google doesn't want to, and as a result Google ends up directly supporting candidates who will go on to do awful things, and sweeping it under the rug -- as with so many other Google problems -- by saying "well, the automated system decided to support him". You don't get to dodge the responsibility for that.
      - ma2rten 8y ago
        You misunderstood what I mean. I will edit my reply for clarity.
  - anon12341234 8y ago
    That website you linked to is bizarre. You claim they donate to "some not-that-great people" then link to website showing they donate to a lot of great people. Were you trying to undermine yourself or did you accidentally link to the wrong page?

ma2rten 8y ago

This is interesting! I work at Google, but I didn't know that Google has a PAC. It's actually funded by employee contributions and it's aim is to support an open internet. https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00428623 https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00428623 They lobby for net neutrality, patent reform, immigration reform and similar issues. This page has more information about Google's political activities in general: https://www.google.com/publicpolicy/transparency.html https://www.google.com/publicpolicy/transparency.html I think Google is much more transparent about this than other companies.

ubernostrum 8y ago
You may want to learn more about Google's PAC. They donate to some not-that-great people, and it's hard to say "open internet" justifies that. https://donationsfrom.tech/google https://donationsfrom.tech/google And if you dig into your own link you'll see that.
- ma2rten 8y ago
  I saw that and I don't see an issue. Money (unfortunately) influences politics in the US and the best way to influence it is to give across the political spectrum.
  - ubernostrum 8y ago
    This is the problem with automated rule-based decision-making. Of course Google relies on it, because Google is existentially committed to the idea that this can solve any problem that ever has existed or ever will exist. But you have to ask yourself whether single-issue political action has a history of consistently producing good results (spoiler: it doesn't). If Google really wanted to, they could find plenty of candidates who support the single issue Google cares about and are also generally decent people; it's not like there's only been one such candidate in the entire history of the universe, as you seem to be implying. But Google doesn't want to, and as a result Google ends up directly supporting candidates who will go on to do awful things, and sweeping it under the rug -- as with so many other Google problems -- by saying "well, the automated system decided to support him". You don't get to dodge the responsibility for that.
    - ma2rten 8y ago
      You misunderstood what I mean. I will edit my reply for clarity.
- anon12341234 8y ago
  That website you linked to is bizarre. You claim they donate to "some not-that-great people" then link to website showing they donate to a lot of great people. Were you trying to undermine yourself or did you accidentally link to the wrong page?