5 ms·

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

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.
      - buckminster 7y ago
        A group of people working together is a partnership. And those people have all the usual rights and liabilities that people have generally. Larry and Sergei could have founded Google as an unlimited liability partnership, but they preferred to incorporate. So Google has to follow the rules that come with incorporation. Incorporation was a free choice. There was an alternative. Nobody's rights are being infringed.
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.

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.
    - buckminster 7y ago
      A group of people working together is a partnership. And those people have all the usual rights and liabilities that people have generally. Larry and Sergei could have founded Google as an unlimited liability partnership, but they preferred to incorporate. So Google has to follow the rules that come with incorporation. Incorporation was a free choice. There was an alternative. Nobody's rights are being infringed.

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.