8 ms·

Fun fact: Google is allowed to defend itself and is not obliged to give prosecutors all they want. The framing of “resists giving documents” purposely makes it

Fun fact: Google is allowed to defend itself and is not obliged to give prosecutors all they want. The framing of “resists giving documents” purposely makes it similar to “resisting arrest”. Fun fact 2: the AGs are being advised by a former News Corp (read: WSJ) lawyer who also advises other google competitors (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/08/texas-attorney-general-googles-new-competition-cop-says-everything-is-table/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/08/texas-a...) Fun fact 3: AGs are elected so they seek publicity, they are also corrupt: the one in Mississippi was issuing subpoenas to Google on behalf of the entertainment industry (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141217/06353329462/attorney-general-downplays-ties-to-mpaa-despite-letter-he-sent-google-revealed-as-written-mpaa.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141217/06353329462/attor...)

mfer 7y ago
While I'm not making a statement on either side in this case... A situation where one side is corrupt or doing things wrong does not mean the other side is right or not corrupt. Both sides are capable of doing wrong and corrupt things.
- notamanager 7y ago
  Sure but defendants (which they aren't even) are presumed innocent and the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Also that's not how the WSJ is presenting this or anything else they publish about google.
  - 0xEFF 7y ago
    Criminal defendants, not civil.
    - stcredzero 7y ago
      > > Sure but defendants are presumed innocent and burden of proof is on the prosecution. > Criminal defendants, not civil. Everyone hates presumption of innocence when they are on the plaintiff/accuser's side. But strangely enough, everyone clings to it when they're on the defendant/accused's side. It's almost like it's a universal principle! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human... Make no mistake. Anyone who wants to erode presumption of innocence and due process is for the power of governments and money over the individual, unwittingly or not. (Strangely enough, almost everyone who tries such erosion does it in the same way, no matter if they're in a totalitarian state or in a democracy; it's all done in the name of "justice.")
      - Frost1x 7y ago
        Personally, I dont believe businesses should be treated as people legally, though I understand some of the complexity involved and why this is currently, mostly the case. Businesses are entities and should be treated significantly different since as abstract/artificial human constructs, they have no real notion of life, death, hardship, hunger, disease, etc. and are able to act accordingly based on these relaxed constraints whereas humans do need to deal with these aspects. Any notion of these human concerns reflected in a business exist only due to businesses being composed of and controlled by humans. Business decisions don't have to and often don't reflect regular human concerns. That relaxed constraint allows them certain competitive advantages over humans. Those competitive advantages are then exploited purely as a proxy for some arbitrarily privileged humans, allowing them to push their personal desires on the world with losses minimally effecting their primary human concerns. That common proxy relationship use needs to have more accountability that leads back to the humans playing the business puppets, otherwise, the punishments are not nearly equivalent in impact on life of a business entity vs an individual.
        refurb 7y ago
        So individuals should be afforded certain rights, but when they work together as a group, those rights should be taken away?
        kick 7y ago
        The entire concept of the corporation is to make it less likely the people involved will be imprisoned or directly take risk based on their mistakes. They willingly take the advantages that come with incorporation, they should lose something. As it stands, anyone in a corporation is a first-class citizen while everyone else is treated as lesser under the law.
        salawat 7y ago
        A business as a legal fiction != a union of all of its members. People don't realize that. A corporation is a standalone entity. And yes, there is nothing inconsistent about a business being held to a more strict standard of disclosure than an individual. I.e. You can plead the Fifth. A Corporation cannot. When a search warrant is issued for all documents of/relating to/pertaining to X created or transacted between dates Y and Z, you don't get to withhold them because it might seem to incriminate the company. That's the price of the corporate superpower of the corporation being able to die/fold/be punished and everyone else being able to go home unharmed except for needing to find a new job; possibly at a new company already established, funded and poised to buy out the assets of the old corporation that's being liquidated. Corporations are not people in the Constitutional sense. You can't take the HOV lane just because you are carrying the Articles of Incorporation for your company. Check with a lawyer by all means, I'm not one, but I've read enough case law and other stuff to feel confident I've at least got this part right.
  - mfer 7y ago
    The comments aren't just by the WSJ. It's many other new publications and many intelligent people who aren't afraid to speak out. The number of voices speaking out is increasing.
    - notamanager 7y ago
      The WSJ and "other publication" aren't disinterested parties in all this, they have filed complaints against Google and they are unashamedly lobbying for laws that would exempt them from being subject to antitrust rules both individually and part of lobbying groups such as newsmediaalliance.org. Newspapers are businesses and they compete with Google. You should scrutinize their motives and the motives of those so called "intelligent people" you mention.
  - valuegram 7y ago
    WSJ does not claim google is guilty in this article. The title is factual. What would you suggest they title the article? "anything else they publish about google" is pretty wildly hyperbolic, and obviously false.
  - rhizome 7y ago
    Obsess much? Google is in no danger of being taken down by HN commenters.
  - a1369209993 7y ago
    Presumption of innocence is a right, ie something people, not corporations, have.
    - avocado4 7y ago
      Presumption of innocence is something any defendant has in a fair trial.
3327 7y ago
Fun fact 4: OP (notamanager) account is brand new, these are his first posts (not that its not probable), yet, here he/she is with all the fun facts and actively commenting and making a investigative counter case.
- bmcfeeley 7y ago
  If you have an issue with the content of the OP's comments, you should address it directly. Dismissing a comment because an account is new is weak.
  - freehunter 7y ago
    If that was true, HN wouldn’t make their name green. The fact that their name is green is an indicator from HN that their comments should be scrutinized.
    - 0xff00ffee 7y ago
      Great. Now do that. Scrutinize. Rather than complain. All three points the OP made are entirely factual statements. If you detect bias, please inform us why?
  - nabnob 7y ago
    Throwaway accounts are discouraged in the site guidelines: >Throwaway accounts are ok for sensitive information, but please don't create accounts routinely. HN is a community—users should have an identity that others can relate to. This user isn't revealing sensitive information, and it seems like they are trying to hide a conflict of interest.
    - literallycancer 7y ago
      This is like the definition of ad hominem. Engage the argument, why does it matter who is presenting it?
      - 7y ago
Jerry2 7y ago
You should disclose whether you work for Google. You've registered less than 24 hours ago and in all of your posts you defend Google.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- notamanager 7y ago
  I don't.
- 3327 7y ago
  How about declaring any conflict of interest what-so-ever? any connections or vested interest?
pkilgore 7y ago
You're correct it's unremarkable a company would want to limit it's production of documents in accordance with their rights to do so under federal and state rules. It's super, and I mean super, fucked up that you turn around and accused the the other side of corruption with literally no evidence that it is true. It's beyond super fucked up that HN thinks OPs answer adds any actual insight to this conversation, as opposed to utterly unsupported insinuations. OP could be right, but we should all be doing better here, from the WSJ to the people upvoting this garbage.
- ergothus 7y ago
  Indeed. My first reaction to the headline was to say "I wouldn't be surprised at all that Google was doing uncompetitive stuff, but just pushing back on discovery doesn't mean anything". Then I read the comments and saw the same one you're reacting to and wasn't sure if I should vote it up for the relevant first point or not because of the other points.
- notamanager 7y ago
  The Washington Post article linked above mentions that the Texas AG is using his google probe to solicit donations in his reelection emails. Here is a NYT article about how state AGs get used by company lawyers to go after competitors with money exchanging hands (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/us/politics/lawyers-create-big-paydays-by-coaxing-attorneys-general-to-sue-.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/us/politics/lawyers-creat...) Here is the one about the Mississippi AG used by the movie industry to go after google (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/20/technology/google-attorney-general-jim-hood-lawsuit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/20/technology/google-attorne...) The WSJ is a not an uninterested party in this case, and this is but one example of them misquoting and spinning reports to attack google (https://searchengineland.com/misquoted-and-misunderstood-why-we-the-search-community-dont-believe-the-wsj-about-google-search-325241 https://searchengineland.com/misquoted-and-misunderstood-why...)
  - creaghpatr 7y ago
    Suggests that the probe is popular with the constituents who elected them. Anti-trust probes are a very popular form of oversight, in case that isn't blindingly obvious.
netcan 7y ago
I don't think many are worried that Google won't defend itself. Re: the other points... Are you implying that current trust-related investigations and such are mostly bogus? Google defends itself against trustbusting constantly: Android, adwords... the platform businesses. It has lost cases & earned record-breaking fines. €5bn is just not a dealbreaker for Google. They expect these occasionally because Google's main MO is prone to it, at their scale. Their platform businesses are exactly the "monopolies" Peter Thiel described as the goal of modern business. The whole point of antitrust is to dampen monopolies. It shouldn't be surprising they collide. I don't really understand the counterargument to pursuing much more decisive antitrust legislation & control, myself. It seems like a clear win.
monadic2 7y ago
By this metric Google is corrupt simply by seeking a profit.
throwaway_tech 7y ago
>they are also corrupt: the one in Mississippi was issuing subpoenas to Google on behalf of the entertainment industry Assuming your allegation is true, an AG was serving subpoenas on behalf of Google and that makes all AGs corrupt...then it goes without saying that if just one Googler has ever engaged in one bad act or act of corruption, then all Googlers are bad or corrupt. I am not sure that is the standard you want to apply. >AGs are elected so they seek publicity Well nothing would gain an AG more publicity than deviating from the other AGs and exposing this case as having no merit and simply a collusion of 49 State AGs in an attempt to collectively seek publicity for their reelections. Of course Google's army of lawyers could expose the same and win Google's attorney's fees from the State, which would be negative publicity...so its pretty far fetched what you allege without any evidence. Of course if you really cared or wanted to know if Google engages in anti-competitive practices try to Google a flight from your location to another city anywhere on the Earth and tell me what pops up first? Is it an organic result? Is it an paid ad? Or is it another Alphabet product embedded into the top of the results driving all internet traffic looking for flights to their self owned product? This is the tip of the iceberg in terms of the reality of Alphabet unfairly using Google's market dominance in an anti-competitive way. The solution is clear, at minimum Alphabet should not be able to buy/bid up Google AdWords, but the better solution would be Alphabet products/services should not be able to appear in Google results at all (or at least on page 1). The beauty of this solution, if/when Google complains that the internet won't be able to search/find their products, Alphabet can be reminded that of course the internet can find their products, through competitor search engines which are only 1 click away.
bryanrasmussen 7y ago
I suppose it may very well be the case that the framing of resists giving documents will lead some people to think of it similarly to resisting arrest, but I would have to think those people were idiots. I think it means they have some documents they don't want to give up. What that means I don't really know, it could mean they have something to hide, but then again it could be they just want to make things difficult for the people they consider their opponents - as I would.
Sangama34 7y ago
> AGs are elected so they seek publicity, they are also corrupt I might also add incompetent and narcissist. Fun Fact 4: Everyone, that is everyone which includes Google has due process rights which I feel should be exercised by everyone. Next what ? > "Man charged with murder resists punishment by pleading non guilty in court".
jariel 7y ago
"“resists giving documents” purposely makes it similar to “resisting arrest”." No, there is no resonance between those two things. Google isn't giving up documents, that's what the headline says, and it's perfectly fair. Your other 'fun facts' are equally disputable.
no_wizard 7y ago
>Fun fact 3: AGs are elected so they seek publicity, they are also corrupt: the one in Mississippi was issuing subpoenas to Google on behalf of the entertainment industry (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141217/06353329462/attor... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141217/06353329462/attor...) This may be an example of corruption in an Attorney General's (AG) office, it does not prove that all AG's are corrupt because they are elected (of which, public relations is a requirement). counter example: Letitia James https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letitia_James https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letitia_James One may not agree with her actions, however, corruption it is not.
rapind 7y ago
WaPo is compromised. I believe most major US News organizations have lost their objectivity. Ironically I blame this on Google and co. with their capture of nearly all online advertising and the inevitable click bait sensationalism it's produced. It's not going to get better any time soon. Karma I guess.
dang 7y ago
We've banned this account, the same way we've banned dozens of your previous accounts, for doing astroturfing for Google for many years now. We've got nothing against Google [1] but we've sure got something against abuse of HN—it boils our blood. Since your comment was the top post on the top thread, I think it's fair to leave this up so everyone can see what you've been doing. It feels like I spend half my life telling HN users not to make insinuations about astroturfing and shilling without evidence [2]. The other side is that we have a contract with the community: when we do find evidence, we crack down hard. [1] In case anyone is worried about bias, here's an example of moderation going the opposite way: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20890092 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20890092. And here's one that involved a different company: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11905831 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11905831. The Googlers who participate on HN are overwhelmingly honest and are some of the best community members that HN has. They're 100% welcome here, and if I were them I'd feel even madder about this than we do. [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=true&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturf https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
- wrkronmiller 7y ago
  Not to derail things further, but can you provide us more details about this astroturfing? How do you know who this person is? What is the background story here? Sounds interesting...
  - thedance 7y ago
    I'm actually quite interested in what about this comment rates the label of astroturfing. Is "astroturfing" now like "gaslighting", that is a word that has lost whatever objective meaning it once had? Are all people with a financial stake in Google required to disclose that at the end of their remarks? If so, dang would have a field day banning accounts that post in Tesla threads. As a person who is now on my 50th HN account, I find the moderation policies here capricious and arbitrary.
    - dang 7y ago
908087 7y ago
While it was already pretty obvious that Mike Masnick was probably acting as part of Google's PR team, being used as a citation by other Google propagandists kind of adds some more support to that idea.

mfer 7y ago

While I'm not making a statement on either side in this case... A situation where one side is corrupt or doing things wrong does not mean the other side is right or not corrupt. Both sides are capable of doing wrong and corrupt things.

notamanager 7y ago
Sure but defendants (which they aren't even) are presumed innocent and the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Also that's not how the WSJ is presenting this or anything else they publish about google.
- 0xEFF 7y ago
  Criminal defendants, not civil.
  - stcredzero 7y ago
    > > Sure but defendants are presumed innocent and burden of proof is on the prosecution. > Criminal defendants, not civil. Everyone hates presumption of innocence when they are on the plaintiff/accuser's side. But strangely enough, everyone clings to it when they're on the defendant/accused's side. It's almost like it's a universal principle! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human... Make no mistake. Anyone who wants to erode presumption of innocence and due process is for the power of governments and money over the individual, unwittingly or not. (Strangely enough, almost everyone who tries such erosion does it in the same way, no matter if they're in a totalitarian state or in a democracy; it's all done in the name of "justice.")
    - Frost1x 7y ago
      Personally, I dont believe businesses should be treated as people legally, though I understand some of the complexity involved and why this is currently, mostly the case. Businesses are entities and should be treated significantly different since as abstract/artificial human constructs, they have no real notion of life, death, hardship, hunger, disease, etc. and are able to act accordingly based on these relaxed constraints whereas humans do need to deal with these aspects. Any notion of these human concerns reflected in a business exist only due to businesses being composed of and controlled by humans. Business decisions don't have to and often don't reflect regular human concerns. That relaxed constraint allows them certain competitive advantages over humans. Those competitive advantages are then exploited purely as a proxy for some arbitrarily privileged humans, allowing them to push their personal desires on the world with losses minimally effecting their primary human concerns. That common proxy relationship use needs to have more accountability that leads back to the humans playing the business puppets, otherwise, the punishments are not nearly equivalent in impact on life of a business entity vs an individual.
      - refurb 7y ago
        So individuals should be afforded certain rights, but when they work together as a group, those rights should be taken away?
        kick 7y ago
        The entire concept of the corporation is to make it less likely the people involved will be imprisoned or directly take risk based on their mistakes. They willingly take the advantages that come with incorporation, they should lose something. As it stands, anyone in a corporation is a first-class citizen while everyone else is treated as lesser under the law.
        salawat 7y ago
        A business as a legal fiction != a union of all of its members. People don't realize that. A corporation is a standalone entity. And yes, there is nothing inconsistent about a business being held to a more strict standard of disclosure than an individual. I.e. You can plead the Fifth. A Corporation cannot. When a search warrant is issued for all documents of/relating to/pertaining to X created or transacted between dates Y and Z, you don't get to withhold them because it might seem to incriminate the company. That's the price of the corporate superpower of the corporation being able to die/fold/be punished and everyone else being able to go home unharmed except for needing to find a new job; possibly at a new company already established, funded and poised to buy out the assets of the old corporation that's being liquidated. Corporations are not people in the Constitutional sense. You can't take the HOV lane just because you are carrying the Articles of Incorporation for your company. Check with a lawyer by all means, I'm not one, but I've read enough case law and other stuff to feel confident I've at least got this part right.
- mfer 7y ago
  The comments aren't just by the WSJ. It's many other new publications and many intelligent people who aren't afraid to speak out. The number of voices speaking out is increasing.
  - notamanager 7y ago
    The WSJ and "other publication" aren't disinterested parties in all this, they have filed complaints against Google and they are unashamedly lobbying for laws that would exempt them from being subject to antitrust rules both individually and part of lobbying groups such as newsmediaalliance.org. Newspapers are businesses and they compete with Google. You should scrutinize their motives and the motives of those so called "intelligent people" you mention.
- valuegram 7y ago
  WSJ does not claim google is guilty in this article. The title is factual. What would you suggest they title the article? "anything else they publish about google" is pretty wildly hyperbolic, and obviously false.
- rhizome 7y ago
  Obsess much? Google is in no danger of being taken down by HN commenters.
- a1369209993 7y ago
  Presumption of innocence is a right, ie something people, not corporations, have.
  - avocado4 7y ago
    Presumption of innocence is something any defendant has in a fair trial.

3327 7y ago

Fun fact 4: OP (notamanager) account is brand new, these are his first posts (not that its not probable), yet, here he/she is with all the fun facts and actively commenting and making a investigative counter case.

bmcfeeley 7y ago
If you have an issue with the content of the OP's comments, you should address it directly. Dismissing a comment because an account is new is weak.
- freehunter 7y ago
  If that was true, HN wouldn’t make their name green. The fact that their name is green is an indicator from HN that their comments should be scrutinized.
  - 0xff00ffee 7y ago
    Great. Now do that. Scrutinize. Rather than complain. All three points the OP made are entirely factual statements. If you detect bias, please inform us why?
- nabnob 7y ago
  Throwaway accounts are discouraged in the site guidelines: >Throwaway accounts are ok for sensitive information, but please don't create accounts routinely. HN is a community—users should have an identity that others can relate to. This user isn't revealing sensitive information, and it seems like they are trying to hide a conflict of interest.
  - literallycancer 7y ago
    This is like the definition of ad hominem. Engage the argument, why does it matter who is presenting it?
    - 7y ago

Jerry2 7y ago

You should disclose whether you work for Google. You've registered less than 24 hours ago and in all of your posts you defend Google.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
notamanager 7y ago
I don't.
3327 7y ago
How about declaring any conflict of interest what-so-ever? any connections or vested interest?

pkilgore 7y ago

You're correct it's unremarkable a company would want to limit it's production of documents in accordance with their rights to do so under federal and state rules. It's super, and I mean super, fucked up that you turn around and accused the the other side of corruption with literally no evidence that it is true. It's beyond super fucked up that HN thinks OPs answer adds any actual insight to this conversation, as opposed to utterly unsupported insinuations. OP could be right, but we should all be doing better here, from the WSJ to the people upvoting this garbage.

ergothus 7y ago
Indeed. My first reaction to the headline was to say "I wouldn't be surprised at all that Google was doing uncompetitive stuff, but just pushing back on discovery doesn't mean anything". Then I read the comments and saw the same one you're reacting to and wasn't sure if I should vote it up for the relevant first point or not because of the other points.
notamanager 7y ago
The Washington Post article linked above mentions that the Texas AG is using his google probe to solicit donations in his reelection emails. Here is a NYT article about how state AGs get used by company lawyers to go after competitors with money exchanging hands (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/us/politics/lawyers-create-big-paydays-by-coaxing-attorneys-general-to-sue-.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/us/politics/lawyers-creat...) Here is the one about the Mississippi AG used by the movie industry to go after google (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/20/technology/google-attorney-general-jim-hood-lawsuit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/20/technology/google-attorne...) The WSJ is a not an uninterested party in this case, and this is but one example of them misquoting and spinning reports to attack google (https://searchengineland.com/misquoted-and-misunderstood-why-we-the-search-community-dont-believe-the-wsj-about-google-search-325241 https://searchengineland.com/misquoted-and-misunderstood-why...)
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  Suggests that the probe is popular with the constituents who elected them. Anti-trust probes are a very popular form of oversight, in case that isn't blindingly obvious.

netcan 7y ago

I don't think many are worried that Google won't defend itself. Re: the other points... Are you implying that current trust-related investigations and such are mostly bogus? Google defends itself against trustbusting constantly: Android, adwords... the platform businesses. It has lost cases & earned record-breaking fines. €5bn is just not a dealbreaker for Google. They expect these occasionally because Google's main MO is prone to it, at their scale. Their platform businesses are exactly the "monopolies" Peter Thiel described as the goal of modern business. The whole point of antitrust is to dampen monopolies. It shouldn't be surprising they collide. I don't really understand the counterargument to pursuing much more decisive antitrust legislation & control, myself. It seems like a clear win.

monadic2 7y ago

By this metric Google is corrupt simply by seeking a profit.

throwaway_tech 7y ago

>they are also corrupt: the one in Mississippi was issuing subpoenas to Google on behalf of the entertainment industry Assuming your allegation is true, an AG was serving subpoenas on behalf of Google and that makes all AGs corrupt...then it goes without saying that if just one Googler has ever engaged in one bad act or act of corruption, then all Googlers are bad or corrupt. I am not sure that is the standard you want to apply. >AGs are elected so they seek publicity Well nothing would gain an AG more publicity than deviating from the other AGs and exposing this case as having no merit and simply a collusion of 49 State AGs in an attempt to collectively seek publicity for their reelections. Of course Google's army of lawyers could expose the same and win Google's attorney's fees from the State, which would be negative publicity...so its pretty far fetched what you allege without any evidence. Of course if you really cared or wanted to know if Google engages in anti-competitive practices try to Google a flight from your location to another city anywhere on the Earth and tell me what pops up first? Is it an organic result? Is it an paid ad? Or is it another Alphabet product embedded into the top of the results driving all internet traffic looking for flights to their self owned product? This is the tip of the iceberg in terms of the reality of Alphabet unfairly using Google's market dominance in an anti-competitive way. The solution is clear, at minimum Alphabet should not be able to buy/bid up Google AdWords, but the better solution would be Alphabet products/services should not be able to appear in Google results at all (or at least on page 1). The beauty of this solution, if/when Google complains that the internet won't be able to search/find their products, Alphabet can be reminded that of course the internet can find their products, through competitor search engines which are only 1 click away.

bryanrasmussen 7y ago

I suppose it may very well be the case that the framing of resists giving documents will lead some people to think of it similarly to resisting arrest, but I would have to think those people were idiots. I think it means they have some documents they don't want to give up. What that means I don't really know, it could mean they have something to hide, but then again it could be they just want to make things difficult for the people they consider their opponents - as I would.

Sangama34 7y ago

> AGs are elected so they seek publicity, they are also corrupt I might also add incompetent and narcissist. Fun Fact 4: Everyone, that is everyone which includes Google has due process rights which I feel should be exercised by everyone. Next what ? > "Man charged with murder resists punishment by pleading non guilty in court".

jariel 7y ago

"“resists giving documents” purposely makes it similar to “resisting arrest”." No, there is no resonance between those two things. Google isn't giving up documents, that's what the headline says, and it's perfectly fair. Your other 'fun facts' are equally disputable.

no_wizard 7y ago

>Fun fact 3: AGs are elected so they seek publicity, they are also corrupt: the one in Mississippi was issuing subpoenas to Google on behalf of the entertainment industry (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141217/06353329462/attor... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141217/06353329462/attor...) This may be an example of corruption in an Attorney General's (AG) office, it does not prove that all AG's are corrupt because they are elected (of which, public relations is a requirement). counter example: Letitia James https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letitia_James https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letitia_James One may not agree with her actions, however, corruption it is not.

rapind 7y ago

WaPo is compromised. I believe most major US News organizations have lost their objectivity. Ironically I blame this on Google and co. with their capture of nearly all online advertising and the inevitable click bait sensationalism it's produced. It's not going to get better any time soon. Karma I guess.

dang 7y ago

We've banned this account, the same way we've banned dozens of your previous accounts, for doing astroturfing for Google for many years now. We've got nothing against Google [1] but we've sure got something against abuse of HN—it boils our blood. Since your comment was the top post on the top thread, I think it's fair to leave this up so everyone can see what you've been doing. It feels like I spend half my life telling HN users not to make insinuations about astroturfing and shilling without evidence [2]. The other side is that we have a contract with the community: when we do find evidence, we crack down hard. [1] In case anyone is worried about bias, here's an example of moderation going the opposite way: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20890092 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20890092. And here's one that involved a different company: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11905831 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11905831. The Googlers who participate on HN are overwhelmingly honest and are some of the best community members that HN has. They're 100% welcome here, and if I were them I'd feel even madder about this than we do. [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=true&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturf https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

wrkronmiller 7y ago
Not to derail things further, but can you provide us more details about this astroturfing? How do you know who this person is? What is the background story here? Sounds interesting...
- thedance 7y ago
  I'm actually quite interested in what about this comment rates the label of astroturfing. Is "astroturfing" now like "gaslighting", that is a word that has lost whatever objective meaning it once had? Are all people with a financial stake in Google required to disclose that at the end of their remarks? If so, dang would have a field day banning accounts that post in Tesla threads. As a person who is now on my 50th HN account, I find the moderation policies here capricious and arbitrary.
  - dang 7y ago

908087 7y ago

While it was already pretty obvious that Mike Masnick was probably acting as part of Google's PR team, being used as a citation by other Google propagandists kind of adds some more support to that idea.