4 ms·

Previous administration had a rotating door with Google executives. It's as if Google was running the WH. This is how they managed to avoid all of the FTC inves

by Jerry2 7y ago

Previous administration had a rotating door with Google executives. It's as if Google was running the WH. This is how they managed to avoid all of the FTC investigations. [2][3][4] This is usually what 3rd world type "banana republic" corruption looks like. [1] https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/googles-remarkably-close-relationship-with-the-obama-white-house-in-two-charts/ https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/googles-remarkably-close... [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-u-s-antitrust-probe-of-google-1426793274 https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-u-s-antitrust-probe-... [3] https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-avoided-ftc-probe-but-others-loom-1426858302 https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-avoided-ftc-probe-but-ot... [4] http://graphics.wsj.com/google-ftc-report/ http://graphics.wsj.com/google-ftc-report/

slg 7y ago
Regardless of the truth of your accusations or validity of the fears presented by OP, it constantly amazes me that so many people genuinely react to these stories with "the other side does it too". Someone else doing something wrong is not a justification for you also doing something wrong. It is the type of excuse you expect from an elementary school child.
- izacus 7y ago
  That's because having the rule of law in the modern world usually means that you're playing by the same rule book. If you allow one powerful player to do things the other can't, that's simply corruption. And our ex-socialist states have proven that that's fundamentally damaging to the country. People fundamentally want government that's fair.
  - AaronFriel 7y ago
    Corruption on "both sides" however is not fair, that's just more corruption. So the whataboutism present in the reply isn't an answer to a question about whether the current DOJ and Administration will act properly.
    - eanzenberg 7y ago
      However, allowing corruption from only 1 side is vastly unfair especially through the lens of public perception.
      - monoideism 7y ago
        I can't believe this is even up for discussion on HN. Corruption is bad, period. There's no "someone else did it" get-out-of-jail card. Also, why didn't we hear all these accusations of corruption against Obama during this presidency? I heard tons about Benghazi, and Fast and Furious, both of which were epic screw-ups that deserved a strong response, but nothing about this supposed corruption. I find it hard to believe that the GOP Congress was willing to let a little corruption go during the Obama presidency.
        A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
        I am willing to agree. Corruption is bad for the population at large. I even agree with the assessment that GOP during Obama years would certainly cry foul if there was even a perception of inapproriety. Frankly, it kinda was their job to be a check ( though I would argue that they failed then as well ). There is a but coming. But, Obama had a decent team, which kept unapproved leaks from surfacing, had a cover from friendly media so even if there was something there, it was tightly held under wraps. Now compare it to current administration where everyone is out to leverage their current position for something better in the future ( book deal, friendly energy company or just extra business for your daughter ). I guess what I am saying is, Obama, HRC, Biden et al are just waaaaay better at covering their tracks.
        AaronFriel 7y ago
        The allegation was all out in the open then! The ouster of a Ukrainian Prosecutor General, the appointment of his son to a board of a Ukrainian company, all of it was public knowledge then!
  - notSupplied 7y ago
    Anti-trust hasn't changed much legislatively in the past few decades. While the laws haven’t changed much on paper, what’s changed is simply the level of enforcement. We still have the same laws that barred IBM from dominating personal computers (creating the opening for Microsoft) but we simply don’t pursue as much enforcement. One problem with diminishing enforcement is that whenever you DO pursue enforcement action, it will inevitably look extremely political.
- cookiecaper 7y ago
  It's relevant in this case because the premise of the first comment is that this administration is particularly and uniquely unqualified to perform an investigation. It's comparative by nature, and therefore information about the disposition and behavior of other administrations is the relevant basis to determine whether the initial proposition is applicable.
  - abvdasker 7y ago
    I would like to clarify that my comment was actually not explicitly comparative in nature. It did not mention a past or future administration. It did not mention the administration of a different country. If you disagree, please quote the part of my comment that makes a comparison to, well, anything. What bothers me about this line of thinking is its suggestion that because corruption is common, observers and interested parties should do nothing about it and remain uncritical towards abuses of power. In particular, it discourages criticism in partisan ways: "Your politicians did it so our politicians should be able to do it. Everyone is corrupt so what are you complaining about?" When partisan ideology normalizes corruption all you end up with is more corruption.
    - chottocharaii 7y ago
      ‘Normally I would say A, but I do not trust X so I will say B’ Is an implicit comparison between X & an unstated Y
      - slg 7y ago
        The comparison is implicit. However the definition of Y is not. Assuming that Y must represent Democrats just because X represents Republicans is viewing the world in a binary and unnecessarily partisan way. Y could just as easy be some neutral, nonpartisan, or completely imaginary option dreamt up solely for the sake of comparison.
    - lingvist 7y ago
      I agree with the sentiment. The delivery suffers: 1. Linguistically speaking, humans tend to save energy. Every utterance is designed to provide new information, to describe what is different from the norm. Going on a rant on how this administration suffers of problems a, b, and c, weakly implies that other administrations suffer much less of problems a, b, and c. Otherwise it would be common knowledge that all administrations suffers of problems a, b, and c roughly in the same degree, and why bother wasting time repeating common knowledge? 2. Arguments that focus specifically on one administration, carefully avoiding anything that could be construed as a negative reflecting onto opposing party administrations, come across as partisan. It is the hallmark of the USA media environment that most what we hear in the political news is technically true, but carefully curated to further one of the major two narratives. Also known as "information bubble". "Democrats: saviors, Republicans: evil" OR "Democrats: corrupt, Republicans: straightshooters". If we truly are to move past partisan criticism, it is on us to fairly depict deplorable behavior on both side of the aisle, regardless of our own political leanings. Otherwise, we risk engaging in the usual half-blind partisan discourse that is tearing this country apart.
- aguyfromnb 7y ago
  >so many people genuinely react to these stories with "the other side does it too". As an outsider (I'm Canadian), it seems to me that the left-wing of America invented "whataboutism" because their hypocrisy is off the charts. >It is the type of excuse you expect from an elementary school child. The idea that you criticize someone for something you yourself are doing is something I'd expect of a child.
  - monoideism 7y ago
    Who is "you yourself" in this analogy? The Obama administration?
    - aguyfromnb 7y ago
      >Who is "you yourself" in this analogy? Anyone crying "that's whataboutism!" in the face of their blatant hypocrisy. I'm not talking about justifying corruption because the other guys do it. But I am talking about things like holding up bills, or filibusters, or whipping the vote, or leaking information, or any other of a multitude of things that one party always seems to lose their mind when it happens like it's never happened before. One party uses something as a political strategy one year, then the next year cries foul like the Union is coming undone when the other side does the same thing. It's stupid.
- Teknoman117 7y ago
  I would argue there is some nuance to this - justifying your favorite politician(s) behavior by claiming the other side does it as well is an excuse you'd expect from a child. However, when you claim that your own party is the bastion of righteousness and the only possible solution because the other party does bad things that you do as well, it undermines your argument.
izacus 7y ago
And now those were replaced with Trump taking pictures inside Apple plant with Tim Cook [1]. It seems that the game stayed the same, except that now another ultra-rich corp seems to be buying favor from the government. It seems that pretty much all of the FAANG corps would require serious invesigation into their walled garden and anti-competitive practices to allow for smaller players to again enter the market and compete. Having a single search provider is extremely dangerous. As dangerous as having an OS where no 3rd party browsers can exist and no software without Tim's approval can run. Edit: downvoters, mind explaining the reasoning? [1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamjeakle/2019/11/25/how-apples-tim-cook-mastered-donald-trump/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamjeakle/2019/11/25/how-ap...
natalyarostova 7y ago
I was always under the impression though that it was Obama who was courting Google, rather than Google trying to court Obama. Although the end result is perhaps the same.

by Jerry2 7y ago

slg 7y ago

Regardless of the truth of your accusations or validity of the fears presented by OP, it constantly amazes me that so many people genuinely react to these stories with "the other side does it too". Someone else doing something wrong is not a justification for you also doing something wrong. It is the type of excuse you expect from an elementary school child.

izacus 7y ago
That's because having the rule of law in the modern world usually means that you're playing by the same rule book. If you allow one powerful player to do things the other can't, that's simply corruption. And our ex-socialist states have proven that that's fundamentally damaging to the country. People fundamentally want government that's fair.
- AaronFriel 7y ago
  Corruption on "both sides" however is not fair, that's just more corruption. So the whataboutism present in the reply isn't an answer to a question about whether the current DOJ and Administration will act properly.
  - eanzenberg 7y ago
    However, allowing corruption from only 1 side is vastly unfair especially through the lens of public perception.
    - monoideism 7y ago
      I can't believe this is even up for discussion on HN. Corruption is bad, period. There's no "someone else did it" get-out-of-jail card. Also, why didn't we hear all these accusations of corruption against Obama during this presidency? I heard tons about Benghazi, and Fast and Furious, both of which were epic screw-ups that deserved a strong response, but nothing about this supposed corruption. I find it hard to believe that the GOP Congress was willing to let a little corruption go during the Obama presidency.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
        I am willing to agree. Corruption is bad for the population at large. I even agree with the assessment that GOP during Obama years would certainly cry foul if there was even a perception of inapproriety. Frankly, it kinda was their job to be a check ( though I would argue that they failed then as well ). There is a but coming. But, Obama had a decent team, which kept unapproved leaks from surfacing, had a cover from friendly media so even if there was something there, it was tightly held under wraps. Now compare it to current administration where everyone is out to leverage their current position for something better in the future ( book deal, friendly energy company or just extra business for your daughter ). I guess what I am saying is, Obama, HRC, Biden et al are just waaaaay better at covering their tracks.
        AaronFriel 7y ago
        The allegation was all out in the open then! The ouster of a Ukrainian Prosecutor General, the appointment of his son to a board of a Ukrainian company, all of it was public knowledge then!
- notSupplied 7y ago
  Anti-trust hasn't changed much legislatively in the past few decades. While the laws haven’t changed much on paper, what’s changed is simply the level of enforcement. We still have the same laws that barred IBM from dominating personal computers (creating the opening for Microsoft) but we simply don’t pursue as much enforcement. One problem with diminishing enforcement is that whenever you DO pursue enforcement action, it will inevitably look extremely political.
cookiecaper 7y ago
It's relevant in this case because the premise of the first comment is that this administration is particularly and uniquely unqualified to perform an investigation. It's comparative by nature, and therefore information about the disposition and behavior of other administrations is the relevant basis to determine whether the initial proposition is applicable.
- abvdasker 7y ago
  I would like to clarify that my comment was actually not explicitly comparative in nature. It did not mention a past or future administration. It did not mention the administration of a different country. If you disagree, please quote the part of my comment that makes a comparison to, well, anything. What bothers me about this line of thinking is its suggestion that because corruption is common, observers and interested parties should do nothing about it and remain uncritical towards abuses of power. In particular, it discourages criticism in partisan ways: "Your politicians did it so our politicians should be able to do it. Everyone is corrupt so what are you complaining about?" When partisan ideology normalizes corruption all you end up with is more corruption.
  - chottocharaii 7y ago
    ‘Normally I would say A, but I do not trust X so I will say B’ Is an implicit comparison between X & an unstated Y
    - slg 7y ago
      The comparison is implicit. However the definition of Y is not. Assuming that Y must represent Democrats just because X represents Republicans is viewing the world in a binary and unnecessarily partisan way. Y could just as easy be some neutral, nonpartisan, or completely imaginary option dreamt up solely for the sake of comparison.
  - lingvist 7y ago
    I agree with the sentiment. The delivery suffers: 1. Linguistically speaking, humans tend to save energy. Every utterance is designed to provide new information, to describe what is different from the norm. Going on a rant on how this administration suffers of problems a, b, and c, weakly implies that other administrations suffer much less of problems a, b, and c. Otherwise it would be common knowledge that all administrations suffers of problems a, b, and c roughly in the same degree, and why bother wasting time repeating common knowledge? 2. Arguments that focus specifically on one administration, carefully avoiding anything that could be construed as a negative reflecting onto opposing party administrations, come across as partisan. It is the hallmark of the USA media environment that most what we hear in the political news is technically true, but carefully curated to further one of the major two narratives. Also known as "information bubble". "Democrats: saviors, Republicans: evil" OR "Democrats: corrupt, Republicans: straightshooters". If we truly are to move past partisan criticism, it is on us to fairly depict deplorable behavior on both side of the aisle, regardless of our own political leanings. Otherwise, we risk engaging in the usual half-blind partisan discourse that is tearing this country apart.
aguyfromnb 7y ago
>so many people genuinely react to these stories with "the other side does it too". As an outsider (I'm Canadian), it seems to me that the left-wing of America invented "whataboutism" because their hypocrisy is off the charts. >It is the type of excuse you expect from an elementary school child. The idea that you criticize someone for something you yourself are doing is something I'd expect of a child.
- monoideism 7y ago
  Who is "you yourself" in this analogy? The Obama administration?
  - aguyfromnb 7y ago
    >Who is "you yourself" in this analogy? Anyone crying "that's whataboutism!" in the face of their blatant hypocrisy. I'm not talking about justifying corruption because the other guys do it. But I am talking about things like holding up bills, or filibusters, or whipping the vote, or leaking information, or any other of a multitude of things that one party always seems to lose their mind when it happens like it's never happened before. One party uses something as a political strategy one year, then the next year cries foul like the Union is coming undone when the other side does the same thing. It's stupid.
Teknoman117 7y ago
I would argue there is some nuance to this - justifying your favorite politician(s) behavior by claiming the other side does it as well is an excuse you'd expect from a child. However, when you claim that your own party is the bastion of righteousness and the only possible solution because the other party does bad things that you do as well, it undermines your argument.

izacus 7y ago

And now those were replaced with Trump taking pictures inside Apple plant with Tim Cook [1]. It seems that the game stayed the same, except that now another ultra-rich corp seems to be buying favor from the government. It seems that pretty much all of the FAANG corps would require serious invesigation into their walled garden and anti-competitive practices to allow for smaller players to again enter the market and compete. Having a single search provider is extremely dangerous. As dangerous as having an OS where no 3rd party browsers can exist and no software without Tim's approval can run. Edit: downvoters, mind explaining the reasoning? [1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamjeakle/2019/11/25/how-apples-tim-cook-mastered-donald-trump/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamjeakle/2019/11/25/how-ap...

natalyarostova 7y ago

I was always under the impression though that it was Obama who was courting Google, rather than Google trying to court Obama. Although the end result is perhaps the same.