8 ms·
Google made large contributions to climate change deniers
- saurik 7y agoThis thread of thought was way more interesting than I assumed from the title: the issue is that some of the same groups that defend Section 230 happen to also be climate change deniers, and so it becomes this question of the morality of single issue politics (which affects normal people as well making decisions at the poll).
- greggman2 7y agoSounds like The Guardian is fighting against Section 230. Where is that headline? "Guardian pushes for big media to control all internet communication"
- aramanto 7y agoTotally agree, however the crude reality is that they are directly helping the cause of climate change denial with their funding.
- oliwarner 7y agoI don't think it's controversial. Don't support groups unless you know what they're doing (and you support that). Google either didn't know or didn't care. Neither are acceptable.
- brudgers 7y agoGoogle either didn't know "Google" is also a verb.
- zenexer 7y agoIt took me a moment to get that, but oh the irony.
- 16bytes 7y ago> Google has defended its contributions, saying that its “collaboration” with organisations such as CEI “does not mean we endorse the organisations’ entire agenda”. So, in your opinion, you should never engage with anybody that you disagree with on any issue? It would seem that you wouldn't have many people left to interact with.
- zbyte64 7y agoDepends on the issue and whether they are actively pushing that issue. Should I be more inclusive to assholes in general? Maybe. Should I give comfort to those that threaten entire societies? You tell me.
- oliwarner 7y agoEngage with and Shovel money into are subtlety different, aren't they? We are talking about lobbying groups and a company with operating profits to rival some GDPs. If Google wanted to support a cause, it can do that without also subsidising climate change deniers.
- dv_dt 7y agoI think it's extremely short sighted to classify climate crisis as "single issue politics". If there was a single issue to impact all other issues than that would be it.
- Paraesthetic 7y agoGoogle from its birth has been involved heavily politically, Eric Schmidt is highly involved in Washington politics to furthur his own interests. I imaging those Data Centres that have aren't too energy efficient, and wouldn't mind a bit of climate change denial so they dont have to pay millions in carbon offset or whatever system comes as a result of climate change. Then again maybe they just realise that the science isn't there for climate change being man made, although doesn't hurt to reduce our damage on the planet though.
- jansan 7y agoFrom the article: 'the Heartland Institute, a radical anti-science group that has chided the teenage activist Greta Thunberg for “climate delusion hysterics”.' I don't know how radical and anti-science the Heartland Institute actually is, but IMHO they are spot-on on this one.
- wlll 7y agoWho are, the Guardian, or The Heartland Institute, and if the latter, why?
- jansan 7y agoThe latter. Why what? Why I have this opinion? Simply because the whole campaign is purely based on emotions, it's whole frickin idea is to cause hysteria in people's minds. And Greta even says that she wants people to be afraid.
- mmjaa 7y agoPerhaps you ought to be afraid. Massive climate change is going to disrupt everything we take for granted today.
- jansan 7y agoEven if you were right, how would it help me being afraid?
- mmjaa 7y agoYou might change your ways. If enough of us do that, we might have a chance to survive. Currently the ship is sinking - do you want to pull out a deck chair and behave as if everything is just fine, sipping on cocktails while the sharks float by? OR would you rather help out those of us who are manning the lifeboats and trying to get folks to safety? You're going to have to put down the cocktail, sir.
- 7y ago
- Animats 7y agoCEI? AEI? Heritage Action? Google supports those? Those are the classic conservative PACs. Although, in the era of Trump, they're starting to look not so bad.
- dredmorbius 7y agoGoogle have long supported those and others, which I'd called out back on G+. Much of the major Libertarian / Koch octopus / Atlas Network / Mont Pelerin front groups. Exceedingly disappointing. Glad to see it getting called out.
- tjansen 7y agoWhile I am not familiar with any of the organisations mentioned in the article, I think it is a good thing when non-mainstream views are financially supported. The headline is "large contributions", but later it is specified as "more than a dozen organisations" out of "hundreds of groups". So it's not like it's a focus of Google's spending. Being able to support opposing viewpoints, and allow them to be funded and researched, is what (should) differentiate the West from China, where opposing viewpoints are deemed dangerous and must be shut down.
- aramanto 7y agoSo in this case, by non-mainstream views you mean lobbying based on made-up research and plain lies I assume (it is what climate change denial lobbies use most of the time)
- tjansen 7y agoI can't know what research is 'made-up' and what isn't. I just know that it's not helpful as an argument to always claim that the other side it lying.
- aramanto 7y agoThere is no other side in this case in my humble opinion. What we have is overwhelming scientific evidence supporting climate change, and some made-up research paid by carbon industry lobbies, like some of the organizations funded by google mentioned in the article, which deny climate change.
- tjansen 7y agoDoes any of them literally deny climate change? I did a quick Wikipedia check on first two of the mentioned organizations, CEI and the Heartland Institute. Both seem to acknowledge that the climate changes because of human action. They are called 'climate deniers' because the other side does not agree with them on policies.
- rob74 7y agoMaybe I'm too cynical, but I wonder why people are so surprised that Google would prioritise Internet deregulation higher than climate protection? More Internet regulation would directly impact Google's shareholders, climate change not (or not in the immediate future). So... Ok, there was this "don't be evil" thing, but it's been a looong time since anyone at Google has mentioned that...
- oska 7y agoI note that this story is not on the front page, despite a good amount of votes within 3 hours. Indeed, it's currently only at position 86 on the third page. I am definitely not accusing HN of anything here. What I do think is the case however is that stories like these get heavily flagged, either by Google supporters on HN or, more speculatively, by controlled accounts.
- leereeves 7y agoIt's on the front page now.
- oska 7y agoMaybe we're seeing different story sorts then, because I just rechecked and, for me at least, it's now at 114 and on the 4th page.
- leereeves 7y agoNo, we're seeing the same thing. Fifteen minutes ago it was around #20, now it's #116.
- oska 7y agoSo I think what's happening is that it gets heavily flagged and, because of that, demoted; then gets reviewed by the admins and the flags wiped; then gets heavily flagged again and demoted again. p.s. It's now at 120 and about to fall off the bottom of the 4th page.
- pzone 7y agoWhy is every group calling the benefits of climate change legislation into question immediately smeared as "climate change deniers?" It's perfectly valid to look at the science, accept its conclusions, and remain unconvinced by the economics in cost-benefit terms.
- dv_dt 7y agoBecause IMHO groups like these are looking to block or slow climate legislation wrapped in fake concern for the validity of science or economics.
- washpanzer33 7y agoBecause once you start talking about economics and fiscal issues you rapidly lose control of the political discussion. Suddenly, the issue isn't 'we must do x' it is 'x costs y and has z payoff.' This is a major political problem because the way public understands most issues is that there isn't a tradeoff between costs and benefits like this. When there is it's usually hidden behind a myth like 'the space program produces lots of commerical knowledge' or 'military spending produced the internet.' Of course, neither of these is true in any real sense. It doesn't mean that the space program or military spending don't have benefits in and of themselves but claiming that they didn't cost anything because they produced ancillary benefits that just so happened to cover their investment is magical thinking. You have the same problem with discussions on green energy today. Saying we have to invest in green energy not because of climate change but because "that is where all the jobs will be" and "renewable energy pays for itself because it is cheaper" are basically the same kind of mythmaking to rationalize away costs. From a political perspective, this makes a lot of sense. If you want a discussion about actual costs and expected payoffs you can't claim that climate change legislation has no downsides; which, while true, is incredibly problematic to assert. What you want to do is have the costs managed internally by the political coalition so you can handwave away hard discussions about fiscal issues. Of course, it always turns out that the subsidies required are either always politically acceptable or do much less than what population expects.
- resoluteteeth 7y agoImagine that a meteor is heading toward the Earth, and there's a 50% chance that it will hit us and wipe out all life, but we won't know whether it will for sure until later and if we want to be able to stop the meteor in the case where it will we need to start preparing now at immense cost. In this scenario, if you say "we're not 100% sure it's going to hit the Earth so we shouldn't prepare until we know for certain" does that make you "unconvinced"? Or does it make you a "denier"?
- thumbsdownnow 7y agoAnd ... Banned 10k anti mainstream accounts from YouTube :))))
- methodiosmel 7y agoI'm sorry but you lose all credibility when you straw man anyone who questions your religious doomsday cult as "Climate Change deniers"... See what I did there? I guess two can play that game.