12 ms·
Google CEO will testify before U.S. House panel in November
- math_and_stuff 8y agoHopefully he will testify about Project Dragonfly as well. Human rights concerns should not get lost in the noise of partisan politics. EDIT: Also, here is a slightly better stub article with an actual quote from Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte. https://thehill.com/policy/technology/408972-house-judiciary-says-google-ceo-will-testify-later-this-year https://thehill.com/policy/technology/408972-house-judiciary...
- someonelse17 8y agoConvening a hearing on a specific subject (silly as it as in this case) then making it an open season for all other grievances is another despicable aspect of these hearings.
- math_and_stuff 8y agoI'm happy to see serious human rights concerns addressed in any and all forums.
- yourbandsucks 8y agoHow come national policy of the host country is only relevant to specifically China, though? It's one thing to say "I won't censor and that's that", one could argue about which approach does more good/harm for the Chinese citizens affected, but it's an argument. But the argument I'm seeing go around is a lot more like "fuck China specifically". Which doesn't seem to square with the other views activists generally espouse about foreign countries/cultures.
- someonelse17 8y agoI don't see a unique human rights angel here, there are many companies doing business with China and a number of other "iffy" governments, if congress was truly alarmed by that they could sanction these companies. This thing became about political retribution after google dropped maven.
- math_and_stuff 8y agoTo be clear, this isn't about doing business in China. It is about responding to 14 human rights organizations having serious concerns [0] about proactive censorship and support for surveillance. And I agree that Google is far from alone in crossing such ethical lines in Silicon Valley. [0] https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/08/28/open-letter-google-reported-plans-launch-censored-search-engine-china https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/08/28/open-letter-google-repor...
- someonelse17 8y agoI'm not talking about Silicon Valley, I'm talking about all other industries in all countries, most Silicon Valley companies are banned in China, stop vilifying Silicon Valley. I'm sure these organizations are great and are doing wonderful work but they are not government entities and Google has no obligation to respond to them, further more these are non profits, attaching themselves to a high profile subject like Google gives them more exposure and potentially more donations.
- math_and_stuff 8y agoI hate to bicker, but, according to Google's own AI Principles [0], they have a self-imposed obligation to respond to serious human rights concerns. They promised not to pursue "technologies whose purpose contravenes widely accepted principles of [...] human rights". [0] https://www.blog.google/technology/ai/ai-principles/ https://www.blog.google/technology/ai/ai-principles/
- someonelse17 8y ago
- dang 8y agoWe've banned this account, as we've banned many of your accounts before, for pushing propaganda for Google. Most recently https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17974966 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17974966, and it goes back a long time before that. It's time you stopped abusing HN like this. I hope it's obvious to everyone that it doesn't matter whether it's Google, $BigTechCo, or anything else being pushed this way. We have nothing against Google, this has nothing to do with what's in the press or making the rounds this week, and I'm sure that the many Googlers here are as put off by this behavior as the rest of HN. Plus they have an additional reason to be angry at you, for tarnishing their reputation. Given that we spend our days asking HN users not to accuse each other of astroturfing without evidence—because doing that is such internet poison—few things make more steam come out my ears than finding actual evidence of this abuse. You couldn't do anything worse to wreck the cohesion of this community (edit: or put Google's standing in it more at risk—users here really care about this). https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- izacus 8y agoWhat exactly would an international corporation like Google gain if they'd start being a tool of American external politics and propaganda? Besides being kicked out of their other markets (EU, India, Russia) Trump considers enemies right now?
- math_and_stuff 8y agoRespecting Article 19 of the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights [0] and concerns from 14 human rights organizations [1] is not America specific. It is about not secretly sacrificing basic freedoms in exchange for access to markets. [0] http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/udhr/article_19.html http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/udhr/article_19.html [1] https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/08/28/open-letter-google-reported-plans-launch-censored-search-engine-china https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/08/28/open-letter-google-repor...
- bla2 8y agoWhy would the US House care about Google's business practices in China? I think Dragonfly is horrible, but why would the House care?
- math_and_stuff 8y agoWho else is a company headquartered in the US that is willfully ignoring serious human rights concerns accountable to? This is exactly what government is for. And they certainly cared in 2007 when Yahoo was behaving similarly [0]. Hopefully Google doesn't want to become "moral pygmies". [0] https://www.mercurynews.com/2007/11/06/lawmaker-scolds-yahoo-morally-you-are-pygmies/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2007/11/06/lawmaker-scolds-yahoo...
- bla2 8y agoThat was 11 years ago. All other big tech firms are doing business in China, by China's rules. Google used to be better than that. It's very sad that that's changing, but again it doesn't seem like something that's relevant for the House.
- math_and_stuff 8y agoI fully support the US government regulating every US company that is willfully aiding in the violation of human rights for profit.
- cycrutchfield 8y agoThat's nice. Why bother questioning Google about an unreleased product when they can question any of the other big tech companies that _already_ do this?
- mrep 8y agoWho defines who "violates human rights"?
- kmlx 8y ago
- abenedic 8y agoNot really a comment on the topic, but I feel like name pollution is becoming a bigger and bigger deal recently. With Dropbox's Naultilus and DragonflyBSD and Google's Dragonfly, and like a hundred other examples, things can only get more and more confusing. Imagine talking to a Mathematician about a meager function, the word has two senses(common and mathematical). Things cannot improve the way we are heading.
- cirgue 8y agoI don’t get it. What could Pichai possibly gain from participating in this kind of theatrics?
- dmitrygr 8y agoNot appearing to be giving the finger to congress, as it looked when he failed to show up to the last set of hearings? Pissing off congress is rarely a good idea.
- komali2 8y agoIt's been a long time since Congress, who works for you and me, has in my opinion elucidated anything I didn't already know from one of these panels. I'm not sure why Congress thinks it can at the drop of a hat order a CEO to participate in their media theatrics, and then pitch a fit when the company says "he/she is busy, we're going to send our top legal expert, who should know about the stuff you're concerned with (law) anyway."
- thetrumanshow 8y agoThe difference, of course, is that it may be under oath, and you can purjure yourself before congress. That means what you think you know from things you read in the media might actually not be as truthy as what is said when someone has to sit down before a body that has the power to criminalize dishonesty. And its an important tool for government. There are very public scandals that the people want answers for. You may say it fits nicely with the expectations of office that elected officials might get to the bottom of things that may effect large groups of their constituents.
- jameskegel 8y agoMaybe he's paying one forward for favorable outcome regarding antitrust investigations. Cases like this don't appear overnight, and they take just as long to adjudicate.
- jasode 8y agoI wasn't the one that downvoted you because there's a common misunderstanding that appearing before Congress is an optional invitation and therefore the people choosing to do it must be mentally insane or stupid since there's nothing to gain from it. The reason people testify before Congress is because they ultimately have no choice. Congress has this nuclear option called a "subpoena"[1] to force you to appear. Now, with prominent people like CEOs and baseball celebrities, it never escalates to the point of issuing a formal subpoena and having Federal marshalls arrest and forcibly drag them into Congressional chambers. Instead what happens is that Congress members "ask nicely" for somebody to testify (e.g. Sundar Pichai) and then the CEO gets with his lawyers and then coordinates with Congress on a reasonable date to appear. Of course, the CEO can try some stalling tactics (e.g. talk to some Congress members "off the record", etc) to buy some time... but ultimately, he's going to have to face Congress sooner or later. The more promptly the requested witness willingly appears before Congress, the better it is for public perception. It's better if the CEO shows cooperation with Congress. The totally opposite tactic is for the CEO to show up and refuse to answer any questions by constantly pleading the 5th Amendment through the entire proceeding. That would look really really bad. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress#Subpoenas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress#Subpoenas
- someonelse17 8y ago"to discuss concerns that the search engine giant is biased against conservatives" ffs.
- kozikow 8y agoIsn't it? It's hard to interpret https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google-leaderships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-googl... otherwise.
- randomposter44 8y agoI dare him to watch the entire video and say there's not a built in bias especially when they start talking about changing their search engine AI to give people "the correct information"
- someonelse17 8y agoThe politics of private citizens are their own business and explicitly not the government's. Furthermore even if that had any bearing on their search results whatever google presents on their own damn website is also none of the government's business.
- simula67 8y agoIt is if Google wants DMCA safe harbour protections
- someonelse17 8y agoI'm not sure what's behind the recent prevalence to this theory but that is false. Also we should all want section 230 protection it's what preserves free speech online and the principle on which the whole web economy is built.
- simula67 8y ago
- davidw 8y agoThey don't care about bias, they just want the bias to be in their favor. See: Fox news.
- adventured 8y agoThey care about the bias precisely because it's not in their favor, as all politicians would.
- davidw 8y ago"all politicians". Nope. They are not all the same in how they handle the press. Obama, for instance, once said some things indicating he was 'irritated' with Fox News. Trump thinks the press - the one mentioned in the 1st amendment of the US constitution - is an "enemy of the people" and has said so loudly. So no, they're not all the same. I mean, I'm sure they'd all love it if the press fawned over them 24/7, but there are big differences between a Trump, Erdogan or Maduro, and, say, an Obama or McCain.
- mc32 8y agoThe prev admin prosecuted more leakers than any prev admin, current admin believes “ fake news” rather than “the press” are the enemy of the people. Now, I know they have their biased method to classify unbiased press from biased, but your assertion just reinforces their claim because you’re conflating one with the other, as most news are wont to do. Doing themselves little favor. A fair question is to ask whether biased news or a biased press are preferable over a more neutral (non partisan) press. If a biased press is not an issue, then “interference” from foreing interests are less of a problem, unless they are for reasons, categorized differently —-however, they would seem to be overarchingly about bias, except one is domestic and one is foreign.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago"current admin believes “ fake news” rather than “the press” are the enemy of the people." But they also define "fake news" to be any outlet that isn't praising them constantly.
- thrillgore 8y agoAs ethically wrong as Google is operating in, this is a witch trial by name. This is the GOP desperately trying to find a villain when its clear they are.
- sctb 8y agoCould you please try to follow the guidelines more closely by posting substantively and avoiding information-free provocation? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- staticautomatic 8y agoChina has "disappeared" more than a million people recently as part of what is fundamentally an ethnic cleansing program. So, yeah, fuck China specifically. See https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/08/22/chinas-mass-internment-camps-have-no-clear-end-in-sight/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/08/22/chinas-mass-internment-...
- yourbandsucks 8y agoYou sure you're not bringing in a little nationalist bias there? Even if you want to constrain the subject to specifically "dealing with central asian muslim separatists over the last couple decades".. seems a little tough for an American to argue with a straight face. I appreciate the candor, though, so thanks. Nice to know the mental place this is coming from.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- trhownow929 8y agoTo put that number in perspective, the US has 2.2 million African Americans in “rehabilitation centres.”
- fermienrico 8y ago^ This is called “Whataboutism”. Stop it, please.
- yourbandsucks 8y agoNo, it's not. God I wish John Oliver never did that episode. If you're singling out an entity as uniquely bad, and saying they should be treated in a unique way because of it, you have to justify that they're uniquely bad.
- fermienrico 8y ago
- beager 8y agoAssuming that the testimony would be to a bipartisan group and presuming the polling is correct and the House flips to Dem control, could this be pushed back to 2019 and the GOP’s larger focus on political bias by Google de-emphasized? Wondering if that’s part of the play here.
- s73v3r_ 8y agoIf the House flips, that won't take effect til January. So the hearing will probably continue as scheduled, just with a Lame Duck Congress. Whether that means they'll be more blustery or less would remain to be seen.
- onepremise 8y agoHonestly, Google should have seen it coming. They are literally dangling themselves out in front of the GOP, not that they don't deserve it. Building a mass surveillance system as described sucks for civil liberties anywhere. However, if they go after Google, they better go after the NSA's mass surveillance setup as it's not much different.
- freeflight 8y agoNone of those will happen anyway because having companies like Google and Facebook based in the US is way too much of an intelligence advantage. As long as they willingly cooperate with US intelligence interests, which they do, that long they will be able to do whatever they want. It's a win-win situation for the US government: Have Google, Facebook and co. do the dirty work and get the bad rep, while US government looks like the good guy for occasionally poking at them, never demanding any real change, but still getting all the data.
- thway892348 8y agoThe US government, corpations, police, other proxies are frequently responsible for human rights violations way worse than building a filtered search engine. How about a hearing about how US made weapons are killing civilians in Yemen? <crickets>. The GOP just confirmed a CIA director who previous gig was literally torturing people at black sites. But by all means lets all fixate on Google. The conservative-bias thing is political kludge for $money$ & attention and because Trump (a moron) doesn't understand why his unpopular irrational ideas aren't ranking higher on a automated popularity engine.
- badsoftwaredev 8y agoI'm so glad an accused rapist will join the supreme court without an FBI investigation, while republicans are trying to bully google out of censoring the horrible shit said by the right.
- calgoo 8y agoIm just going to say that the phrase: " biased against conservatives" sounds oxymoron. The "conservatives" that I keep hearing about on the "conservative" news sources, are IMO organizations that try to hinder and destroy any effort at evolving as humans. So, at what point can a company like google say: "Fuck those people" officially?
- ToFab123 8y agoI hope there is an "Snowden" inside Google that one day (soon) will expose how much Google knows about us. I hope he has a cousin working at Facebook too.