4 ms·
Why a private meeting? Surely it's transparency Google needs to regain public trust?
by polskibus 8y ago
Why a private meeting? Surely it's transparency Google needs to regain public trust?
- davidw 8y agoThe GOP lawmakers aren't interested in public trust, but in gaining leverage - that would be my thought, at least.
- anoncoward111 8y agoThis is correct. Yesterday I was downvoted for defending Alex Jones' right to free speech, and today I will be downvoted for defending Google from overzealous Republicans. shrugs
- anoncoward2e20 8y agoYes. For those who want a good read on history, check this out "Divided We Stand". (author is an establishment, mainstream historian of Congress.) https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/50/divided-we-stand/ https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/50/divided-we-stand/
- geodel 8y agoJust downvoted? Not provided strange arguments like "Right to free speech is not right free reach" or Google/FB/Apple/Twitter are private companies and do not owe anything to whom they don't like?
- User23 8y agoI know you’re kidding and this is funny, because corporations couldn’t even exist without the state passing statutes allowing incorporation.
- s73v3r_ 8y agoThose two situations are completely and utterly different. Apples and lug wrenches, as it were.
- nova22033 8y ago>shrugs reads the constitution. Fails to find the part where you have a right NOT to be downvoted. shrugs
- reaperducer 8y agoThe GOP lawmakers aren't interested in public trust, but in gaining leverage This isn't a GOP or DNC thing. All of Congress is peeved as Google's apparent contempt for how the nation works: https://www.cnet.com/news/google-is-a-no-show-at-the-washington-dc-tech-hearings-stoking-anger-in-congress/ https://www.cnet.com/news/google-is-a-no-show-at-the-washing... IME, the lawmakers agreed to go "private" with the meeting in order to get Google to even talk to them.
- davidw 8y agoThere are legit problems with Google and FB and so on, but I don't trust the current congress to come up with sensible ideas. Not one bit.
- bduerst 8y agoIf Congress is peeved, then they shouldn't have rejected the VP: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/404268-senate-intel-invites-alphabet-ceo-to-testify-rejecting-company-offer-of-vp https://thehill.com/policy/technology/404268-senate-intel-in...
- anoncoward2e20 8y agoHistory of this. Good read: "Divided We Stand". (author is an establishment, mainstream historian of Congress.) https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/50/divided-we-stand/ https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/50/divided-we-stand/
- antsar 8y agoIs "public trust" actually a problem for Google? In my experience, most people just don't care.
- asdkhadsj 8y agoVery meaningful question. Echo chambers tend to think their influence is far greater than it is. Much of HN may be growing resentment, but that's far from reflective on the population as a whole. Even if it's considered the beginning of a trend, the question of what does the public actually think - do they actually care still stands. edit: I a word.
- neonate 8y agoFTA: "and again at a public hearing this year".
- polskibus 8y agoHaving a private meeting before that looks like they wanted to establish a secret deal first and do the PR later. I'm not saying that's what Google wants to do, just that it's bad PR imho.
- natch 8y agoThe GOP is not big on transparency and accountability so it's no surprise.
- oh-kumudo 8y agoEven US government doesn't have public trust right now. I don't think Americans trust anyone/anything under current political climate.