5 ms·

At which big company do you think senior executives care about human rights? I am not saying Google shouldn't strive to do better than others, but just curious.

hacknat 7y ago
If big is the problem than maybe we should break these monopolies up.
- enitihas 7y ago
  How does that work well in a global economy? What if China doesn't break their big companies, but rather encourages them?
  - andreilys 7y ago
    What will likely happen is those companies will now have less competition and as a result dominate the world economy. Serving as yet another tool to exert and influence the geopolitical landscape.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      Free trade is not a law of nature.
      - enitihas 7y ago
        Off-course not. However, the economy would change a lot if we were to take that view, and we will have other problems.
        anoncake 7y ago
        Change is not a bad thing.
    - infinityplus1 7y ago
      Those big companies can simply be banned. Look at Huavei.
      - enitihas 7y ago
        Was huawei ever banned, or only threatened?
    - hacknat 7y ago
      The first word of your response belies its incorrectness. While you may end up being right, the situation is anything but “simple”. There are plenty of Monopolies that were taken down by innovation in the last 20 years. Monopolies are not autocrats. They do have lots of power, but they’re not invincible, especially when it comes to innovating.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - enitihas 7y ago
        And which monopolies were replaced with a good competitive landscape. Nobody is saying innovation can't replace monopolies, just that they are more likely to be replaced by another innovative monopoly rather than several competitive businesses.
lokar 7y ago
I think the interesting part (from this story, and my personal experience) was that Google execs did care for as long as they did. It obviously ended, but much later then I would have expected.
michaelt 7y ago
A lot of companies are less subject to criticism by simply not having an arsenal of spying and censorship tools at their disposal, or China as a major target market. If you're a senior executive at CVS or Verizon or Home Depot you don't need a stance on disputed borders in your maps or flags in your emoji set - making it much easier to avoid the kind of criticisms tech companies are vulnerable to. Sure, you're vulnerable to criticism for selling products brought from (or containing components brought from) oppressive regimes, but Apple and Google and Microsoft all do that and the other stuff as well
advisedwang 7y ago
I think Larry and Sergey did. And that's kind of the authors point when he talks about leadership change.

hacknat 7y ago

If big is the problem than maybe we should break these monopolies up.

enitihas 7y ago
How does that work well in a global economy? What if China doesn't break their big companies, but rather encourages them?
- andreilys 7y ago
  What will likely happen is those companies will now have less competition and as a result dominate the world economy. Serving as yet another tool to exert and influence the geopolitical landscape.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    Free trade is not a law of nature.
    - enitihas 7y ago
      Off-course not. However, the economy would change a lot if we were to take that view, and we will have other problems.
      - anoncake 7y ago
        Change is not a bad thing.
  - infinityplus1 7y ago
    Those big companies can simply be banned. Look at Huavei.
    - enitihas 7y ago
      Was huawei ever banned, or only threatened?
  - hacknat 7y ago
    The first word of your response belies its incorrectness. While you may end up being right, the situation is anything but “simple”. There are plenty of Monopolies that were taken down by innovation in the last 20 years. Monopolies are not autocrats. They do have lots of power, but they’re not invincible, especially when it comes to innovating.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - enitihas 7y ago
      And which monopolies were replaced with a good competitive landscape. Nobody is saying innovation can't replace monopolies, just that they are more likely to be replaced by another innovative monopoly rather than several competitive businesses.

lokar 7y ago

I think the interesting part (from this story, and my personal experience) was that Google execs did care for as long as they did. It obviously ended, but much later then I would have expected.

michaelt 7y ago

A lot of companies are less subject to criticism by simply not having an arsenal of spying and censorship tools at their disposal, or China as a major target market. If you're a senior executive at CVS or Verizon or Home Depot you don't need a stance on disputed borders in your maps or flags in your emoji set - making it much easier to avoid the kind of criticisms tech companies are vulnerable to. Sure, you're vulnerable to criticism for selling products brought from (or containing components brought from) oppressive regimes, but Apple and Google and Microsoft all do that and the other stuff as well

advisedwang 7y ago

I think Larry and Sergey did. And that's kind of the authors point when he talks about leadership change.