4 ms·

Let's say you win, and Google donates to causes you find worthy, and doesn't donate to causes you don't find worthy. This basically means you want Google to do

Let's say you win, and Google donates to causes you find worthy, and doesn't donate to causes you don't find worthy. This basically means you want Google to donate solely to the Dems and nothing for the Republicans, or at least greatly skew the ratio. And that would mean Google would be officially coming out as putting its grubby hands on the scale for the 2020 election. And since everything on the internet goes through Google, this means they get to play kingmaker. Is this the precedent you want to set? Is this the world you want to live in? Choose carefully.

idlewords 7y ago
If I "win", Google dissolves its political action committee and no longer makes direct campaign contributions. I don't follow your argument.
- sandoooo 7y ago
  I doubt it. I notice you are only agitating against specific donations toward Republicans, rather than all contributions in general. What's the least-effort way for Google to avoid the bad publicity you are seeking to inflict? Stop donations to those specific people, obviously. And let the ratio of donations get skewed. I think you would find that this is the exact outcome that many people on 'your side' are hoping for.
  - idlewords 7y ago
    Read the actual threads? I show examples of what I believe are indefensible donations, and end every one with a plea for employees to de-fund the PAC in its entirety. I can't help it if we're in a polarized environment where the Democratic party doesn't elect climate denialists, homophobes or white nationalists to office too. Maybe next year.
    - sandoooo 7y ago
      I'm sure you have very good reasons to believe the things you do. It doesn't change the consequences of your actions.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  So, you prefer that they peddle in political influence in ways other than money instead? Things that are harder to track and follow? Because companies as large as Google cannot afford not to.
  - sandoooo 7y ago
    If I were running the whole show, I'd introduce new laws that classify any private for-profit corporation with valuation above a certain percentage of the GDP as special entities that are not allowed to express any political opinion whatsoever. They would also need to accept additional auditing and transparency measures to enforce this. I'd set this limit high enough that only 50 or so companies need to do this at any one time. I would set up a dedicated department whose entire job is to watch Google - and only Google - like a hawk. Same with FB. Alas, I am not actually running the show, so for now I would just like people to realize that we're all in a big hole here and they should stop digging.
    - votepaunchy 7y ago
      > classify any private for-profit corporation with valuation above a certain percentage of the GDP as special entities that are not allowed to express any political opinion whatsoever I’d be okay with this as long as you also banned these companies from assembling, allowing all employees to telework.
kick 7y ago
He's repeatedly gotten companies to cease political donations. Though a company playing kingmaker wouldn't be bad, necessarily.
- sandoooo 7y ago
  Oh, it will be very bad. Nobody voted for google. And nobody can vote out google, once it's in. How the hell do you even organize a campaign without the internet?
  - kick 7y ago
    Google doesn't run a social media company, and 'idlewords pushed millions of dollars from tech workers to progressive candidates across the nation almost exclusively using Twitter shitposting. Political organizing without Google is doable. It was some great shitposting. For example, 'tptacek threatening to post more Eric Raymond quotes unless a donation goal was reached: https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/966540097163325445 https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/966540097163325445
    - sandoooo 7y ago
      Google runs... Google. As in the search engine that pretty much the entire internet uses. It controls the algorithms that decides what everybody will actually clicks on. Plus a bunch of other internet-plumbing stuff that everybody uses. It really should not have a political opinion, but not because it's technically infeasible. It is feasible and easy to create a slant. And if done right nobody will even know.

idlewords 7y ago

If I "win", Google dissolves its political action committee and no longer makes direct campaign contributions. I don't follow your argument.

sandoooo 7y ago
I doubt it. I notice you are only agitating against specific donations toward Republicans, rather than all contributions in general. What's the least-effort way for Google to avoid the bad publicity you are seeking to inflict? Stop donations to those specific people, obviously. And let the ratio of donations get skewed. I think you would find that this is the exact outcome that many people on 'your side' are hoping for.
- idlewords 7y ago
  Read the actual threads? I show examples of what I believe are indefensible donations, and end every one with a plea for employees to de-fund the PAC in its entirety. I can't help it if we're in a polarized environment where the Democratic party doesn't elect climate denialists, homophobes or white nationalists to office too. Maybe next year.
  - sandoooo 7y ago
    I'm sure you have very good reasons to believe the things you do. It doesn't change the consequences of your actions.
Mirioron 7y ago
So, you prefer that they peddle in political influence in ways other than money instead? Things that are harder to track and follow? Because companies as large as Google cannot afford not to.
- sandoooo 7y ago
  If I were running the whole show, I'd introduce new laws that classify any private for-profit corporation with valuation above a certain percentage of the GDP as special entities that are not allowed to express any political opinion whatsoever. They would also need to accept additional auditing and transparency measures to enforce this. I'd set this limit high enough that only 50 or so companies need to do this at any one time. I would set up a dedicated department whose entire job is to watch Google - and only Google - like a hawk. Same with FB. Alas, I am not actually running the show, so for now I would just like people to realize that we're all in a big hole here and they should stop digging.
  - votepaunchy 7y ago
    > classify any private for-profit corporation with valuation above a certain percentage of the GDP as special entities that are not allowed to express any political opinion whatsoever I’d be okay with this as long as you also banned these companies from assembling, allowing all employees to telework.

kick 7y ago

He's repeatedly gotten companies to cease political donations. Though a company playing kingmaker wouldn't be bad, necessarily.

sandoooo 7y ago
Oh, it will be very bad. Nobody voted for google. And nobody can vote out google, once it's in. How the hell do you even organize a campaign without the internet?
- kick 7y ago
  Google doesn't run a social media company, and 'idlewords pushed millions of dollars from tech workers to progressive candidates across the nation almost exclusively using Twitter shitposting. Political organizing without Google is doable. It was some great shitposting. For example, 'tptacek threatening to post more Eric Raymond quotes unless a donation goal was reached: https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/966540097163325445 https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/966540097163325445
  - sandoooo 7y ago
    Google runs... Google. As in the search engine that pretty much the entire internet uses. It controls the algorithms that decides what everybody will actually clicks on. Plus a bunch of other internet-plumbing stuff that everybody uses. It really should not have a political opinion, but not because it's technically infeasible. It is feasible and easy to create a slant. And if done right nobody will even know.