4 ms·

Google offered their top lawyer for the senate hearing but they rejected him, I guessing it's because they needed CEOs in order to maximize the pleasure from th

Google offered their top lawyer for the senate hearing but they rejected him, I guessing it's because they needed CEOs in order to maximize the pleasure from their exercise in public humiliation. The whole thing about snubbed senators getting mad and wanting revenge is beyond undemocratic it's tyrannical.

x220 8y ago
It's not undemocratic merely because they are scared that two or three companies arguably control the majority of political discussion in America. It certainly doesn't follow the norms of American laws relating to public spaces and free speech, of which all important laws and decisions were made before the invention of the internet or its widespread adoption. Edit: If you downvote, tell me why you disagree.
partiallypro 8y ago
The Senate hearing was about election influence of tech giants, not limited to any company bias (most of the hearing was about Russia/China,) not seeing how that's tyrannical and I'm incredibly libertarian. It was a show, as most public Senate hearings are...but my point is that the entire reason the CEO is meeting lawmakers now is because he snubbed them during the Senate hearing earlier. The Senate cares way way more about Google killing cooperation with the DoD and then cuddling up to China to censor search than anything else. Google's willingness to violate human rights to gain a foothold in a search market should bother more people than it currently does.
- someonelse17 8y ago
  Unless it's illegal it's none of their business.
  - partiallypro 8y ago
    If a US DoD vendor is getting cozy with a perceived enemy to violate human rights it is 100% the Senate's business.
    - someonelse17 8y ago
      Define "getting cozy" in this context and please explain why a public hearing is in any way better than a private one or even just exchanging correspondence.
  - justtopost 8y ago
    They literally set the policy for the nation, they arent Police. It is percicely their business.
    - someonelse17 8y ago
      If it was truly about policy they would have accepted the lawyer, it's theatrics and grandstanding and campaigning from that dais.
  - drak0n1c 8y ago
    Nothing Facebook or Cambridge Analytica did regarding user data was illegal. Please clarify how the matter of legality determines whether a Congressional hearing is unwarranted, or undemocratic.
    - someonelse17 8y ago
      I don't think it was warranted in that case either, it was an exicise in public humiliation, a bunch of people who never created anything getting off on talking down to someone much better than them.
  - kbutler 8y ago
    What do you think is the business of senators? Senators are legislators. Legislators write laws, changing things from "illegal" to "legal" or vice versa. The question of whether conduct should be illegal is thus absolutely their business, and the purpose of senate hearings (aside from grandstanding) is to give a public forum of record where these issues can be discussed to guide future legislation. There seems to be a strange misperception that judges should decide whether something should be legal or not, when their role is to /interpret/ the law as it exists, and /apply/ the law to specific situations.

x220 8y ago

It's not undemocratic merely because they are scared that two or three companies arguably control the majority of political discussion in America. It certainly doesn't follow the norms of American laws relating to public spaces and free speech, of which all important laws and decisions were made before the invention of the internet or its widespread adoption. Edit: If you downvote, tell me why you disagree.

partiallypro 8y ago

The Senate hearing was about election influence of tech giants, not limited to any company bias (most of the hearing was about Russia/China,) not seeing how that's tyrannical and I'm incredibly libertarian. It was a show, as most public Senate hearings are...but my point is that the entire reason the CEO is meeting lawmakers now is because he snubbed them during the Senate hearing earlier. The Senate cares way way more about Google killing cooperation with the DoD and then cuddling up to China to censor search than anything else. Google's willingness to violate human rights to gain a foothold in a search market should bother more people than it currently does.

someonelse17 8y ago
Unless it's illegal it's none of their business.
- partiallypro 8y ago
  If a US DoD vendor is getting cozy with a perceived enemy to violate human rights it is 100% the Senate's business.
  - someonelse17 8y ago
    Define "getting cozy" in this context and please explain why a public hearing is in any way better than a private one or even just exchanging correspondence.
- justtopost 8y ago
  They literally set the policy for the nation, they arent Police. It is percicely their business.
  - someonelse17 8y ago
    If it was truly about policy they would have accepted the lawyer, it's theatrics and grandstanding and campaigning from that dais.
- drak0n1c 8y ago
  Nothing Facebook or Cambridge Analytica did regarding user data was illegal. Please clarify how the matter of legality determines whether a Congressional hearing is unwarranted, or undemocratic.
  - someonelse17 8y ago
    I don't think it was warranted in that case either, it was an exicise in public humiliation, a bunch of people who never created anything getting off on talking down to someone much better than them.
- kbutler 8y ago
  What do you think is the business of senators? Senators are legislators. Legislators write laws, changing things from "illegal" to "legal" or vice versa. The question of whether conduct should be illegal is thus absolutely their business, and the purpose of senate hearings (aside from grandstanding) is to give a public forum of record where these issues can be discussed to guide future legislation. There seems to be a strange misperception that judges should decide whether something should be legal or not, when their role is to /interpret/ the law as it exists, and /apply/ the law to specific situations.