3 ms·

> I'm a big fan of regulated food, clean water and pollution standards. You're comparing food and water to how a company does business in another country. Thes

> I'm a big fan of regulated food, clean water and pollution standards. You're comparing food and water to how a company does business in another country. These two things couldn't be more different. Does the US government also manage food and water in China? > The better question is whether Google is acting as a monopoly That's an entirely different question. The letter seemed to target the china problem directly, which is more about censorship than monopoly. If anything, monopoly is just being used as an excuse here. > but why shouldn't we go after the biggest business first? Isn't Apple bigger by most metrics? > you haven't made a sufficient case that "favorites" are being played I think the point is, if favorites aren't being played now, this sort of move incentives companies to suck up even more to lawmakers. If Google gets screwed for doing business in China while thousands of other companies get away with it, what kind of incentive does that show?

simonbyrne 8y ago
> Does the US government also manage food and water in China? No, but the US certainly does regulate how companies can act in other countries, e.g. the FCPA. > If Google gets screwed for doing business in China while thousands of other companies get away with it, what kind of incentive does that show? It shows that the government believes some principles should be above making a quick buck.
- travisoneill1 8y ago
  > It shows that the government believes some principles should be above making a quick buck. It shows that congress believes cheap PR for them is above somebody else making a quick buck.
coldtea 8y ago
>You're comparing food and water to how a company does business in another country. These two things couldn't be more different. How a company does business "in another country" reflects back on its own country (and can even have repercussions beyond image). Google is always free to relocate their headquarters to another country and quit receiving the drawbacks of being a US company of course (along with any benefits that come with them)... >If Google gets screwed for doing business in China while thousands of other companies get away with it, what kind of incentive does that show? For one it shows that "doing business in China" is not a single, concrete thing, but there are tons of ways to do "business in China", some harmful and some not, and that might even depend on the industry. E.g. selling Cokes to China: no big deal. Selling arms to China: might need some scrutiny. Selling Search technology to China catered to assist censorship: ditto. So, the right question is not "why single out Google while other companies also do business with China", but rather "are these other companies in the SAME kind of business with China?". And I'm not even against Google working in China, or following their local laws. Just want to point out obvious argument flaws.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

simonbyrne 8y ago

> Does the US government also manage food and water in China? No, but the US certainly does regulate how companies can act in other countries, e.g. the FCPA. > If Google gets screwed for doing business in China while thousands of other companies get away with it, what kind of incentive does that show? It shows that the government believes some principles should be above making a quick buck.

travisoneill1 8y ago
> It shows that the government believes some principles should be above making a quick buck. It shows that congress believes cheap PR for them is above somebody else making a quick buck.

coldtea 8y ago

>You're comparing food and water to how a company does business in another country. These two things couldn't be more different. How a company does business "in another country" reflects back on its own country (and can even have repercussions beyond image). Google is always free to relocate their headquarters to another country and quit receiving the drawbacks of being a US company of course (along with any benefits that come with them)... >If Google gets screwed for doing business in China while thousands of other companies get away with it, what kind of incentive does that show? For one it shows that "doing business in China" is not a single, concrete thing, but there are tons of ways to do "business in China", some harmful and some not, and that might even depend on the industry. E.g. selling Cokes to China: no big deal. Selling arms to China: might need some scrutiny. Selling Search technology to China catered to assist censorship: ditto. So, the right question is not "why single out Google while other companies also do business with China", but rather "are these other companies in the SAME kind of business with China?". And I'm not even against Google working in China, or following their local laws. Just want to point out obvious argument flaws.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]