4 ms·
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://donation
by 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 agoI 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 agoThis 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 agoYou misunderstood what I mean. I will edit my reply for clarity.
- anon12341234 8y agoThat 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?