4 ms·

Don't think it's allowed. I just tried to post it only to learn that someone else also tried; post is dead. Not surprised, but think it's a little weird becaus

Don't think it's allowed. I just tried to post it only to learn that someone else also tried; post is dead. Not surprised, but think it's a little weird because the leaking of the video seems like a point for discussion of something happening in the company, SV, etc., maybe? Maybe Dang (or someone other minder) will be kind enough to explain.

itbeho 8y ago
It’s worthy of a discussion in my mind. There are a few articles in the news this week about Google trying to influence the election in Clinton’s favor. And yet she still lost. Perhaps Google isn’t as influential as they think? That being said, Google executives are not elected representatives of the American people and they subvert the voter’s will at the risk of regulation that will likely be worse for them and their customers.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > That being said, Google executives are not elected representatives of the American people and they subvert the voter’s will at the risk of regulation that will likely be worse for them and their customers. Google executives and Google as such have the Constitutionally protected right to attempt to influence elections by lawful means, and regulatory retaliation for such activism is exactly what the First Amendment exists to protect against. (It's kind of ironic that the people arguing that Google should be regulated for advocating against the current administration and the Party behind it often think that the rules preventing churches from retaining their tax-code subsidy while actively campaigning for candidates should be abolished, as they assume those would be likely, on balance, to advocate for that party.)
dang 8y ago
That site has been banned on HN for years. We're happy to make exceptions for specific cases where there's a substantive post, though, like this one.
- jsoc815 8y ago
  Ah, thanks for explaining.
- savethefuture 8y ago
  Good exception. Off-topic: Is there a list of banned websites and is it public?
  - dang 8y ago
    Yes. Well, a hashtable. It's not public, but it wouldn't be hard to approximate from public data.
    - shmulkey18 8y ago
      > It's not public Why not?
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
- ihatethem 8y ago
  I don't see how private citizens discussing their political views is "substantive", there is nothing remotely controversial in that footage, this is just fodder for partisans.
  - dang 8y ago
    You've repeatedly created accounts with a propaganda agenda for Google. You've been doing it for years. We've banned you before, and I've banned this account. Doing this is abusive regardless of what company you're promoting or what your motive is. Would you please stop? HN is for curious humans to exchange thoughts in community. Few things undermine curiosity or community more. We frequently ask users not to accuse each other of astroturfing or shilling without evidence, but when we do find evidence—and there's a lot of it in this case—we go from tolerant to severe pretty quickly. (All: this is not about the thread topic, politics, or Google in general—only a malignant kind of forum abuse. I hesitate to post it in an already-controversial thread, but the data are so clear that I decided not to wait.)

itbeho 8y ago

It’s worthy of a discussion in my mind. There are a few articles in the news this week about Google trying to influence the election in Clinton’s favor. And yet she still lost. Perhaps Google isn’t as influential as they think? That being said, Google executives are not elected representatives of the American people and they subvert the voter’s will at the risk of regulation that will likely be worse for them and their customers.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> That being said, Google executives are not elected representatives of the American people and they subvert the voter’s will at the risk of regulation that will likely be worse for them and their customers. Google executives and Google as such have the Constitutionally protected right to attempt to influence elections by lawful means, and regulatory retaliation for such activism is exactly what the First Amendment exists to protect against. (It's kind of ironic that the people arguing that Google should be regulated for advocating against the current administration and the Party behind it often think that the rules preventing churches from retaining their tax-code subsidy while actively campaigning for candidates should be abolished, as they assume those would be likely, on balance, to advocate for that party.)

dang 8y ago

That site has been banned on HN for years. We're happy to make exceptions for specific cases where there's a substantive post, though, like this one.

jsoc815 8y ago
Ah, thanks for explaining.
savethefuture 8y ago
Good exception. Off-topic: Is there a list of banned websites and is it public?
- dang 8y ago
  Yes. Well, a hashtable. It's not public, but it wouldn't be hard to approximate from public data.
  - shmulkey18 8y ago
    > It's not public Why not?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
ihatethem 8y ago
I don't see how private citizens discussing their political views is "substantive", there is nothing remotely controversial in that footage, this is just fodder for partisans.
- dang 8y ago
  You've repeatedly created accounts with a propaganda agenda for Google. You've been doing it for years. We've banned you before, and I've banned this account. Doing this is abusive regardless of what company you're promoting or what your motive is. Would you please stop? HN is for curious humans to exchange thoughts in community. Few things undermine curiosity or community more. We frequently ask users not to accuse each other of astroturfing or shilling without evidence, but when we do find evidence—and there's a lot of it in this case—we go from tolerant to severe pretty quickly. (All: this is not about the thread topic, politics, or Google in general—only a malignant kind of forum abuse. I hesitate to post it in an already-controversial thread, but the data are so clear that I decided not to wait.)