6 ms·

Same senators who thought Google made iPhones? Not defending Google but I am saying that most of those senators are not the holders of truth when it comes to te

Same senators who thought Google made iPhones? Not defending Google but I am saying that most of those senators are not the holders of truth when it comes to technology.

Razengan 6y ago
I don’t know, some people here seem pretty confident in the knowledge of senators etc. when it comes to calls for investigations into Apple.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> most of those senators are not the holders of truth when it comes to technology They don’t have to be. Their staffers do. I’ve worked with a number of staffers on these questions for about three years now. They’re some of the smartest people I’ve worked with in my career, which has centred around Wall Street and Silicon Valley.
- mondoshawan 6y ago
  So why aren't they the senators instead of the morons they back?
  - qaq 6y ago
    would people actually vote for them?
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      Combining brains and charisma is very rare in a politician. Obama being the textbook example - senior law school lecturer but also has the emotional depth and natural charm.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        And he was accused of being a “secret Muslim” trying to bring Sharia law by a large percentage of the population. That and trying to use the military to “takeover” Texas.
      - wasdfff 6y ago
        I’d think the list is shorter of charismatic politicians who hadn’t gone to a top notch law school. Plenty use brains and charm. Even spineless hacks like Mitch McConnel know how to be charismatic around wealthy republicans, and are brilliant, just brilliantly evil.
  - HatchedLake721 6y ago
    Because being smart is not a golden ticket or the only quality required to become a senator/politician.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    You need to be a certain type of animal to be a successful politician. Especially in the US where the power per person in the senate especially is enormous. The house of commons has 600 more MPs for 5x less population.
  - Broken_Hippo 6y ago
    Because a senator should know how to listen to others. They cannot be an expert on everything. Heck, these folks are making rules about medicine, pollution, car safety, tech issues, teaching, school lunches, interstate highways, commerce, military, child toy standards, what sorts of meat to allow in, and lots of other things I can't think up off of the top of my head. No one can be an expert on all of them - why we would suddenly expect them all to be an expert on this is beyond me. IIRC, an education in law is pretty common, which would be expected. (I know the system isn't perfect and not everyone listens to educated voices and in a perfect world, there would be a range of knowledge in the elected body itself). Edited for a missed comma.
    - doukdouk 6y ago
      I think you missed the point - representatives should be expert (at a minimum) in HN interests or come from the same demographics (better) as HN commentators. Anything else means they are "morons", to use the word of the previous commentator.
  - wasdfff 6y ago
    The staffer is a specialist. Intimate knowledge of highway infrastructure, or technology issues alone do not make a senator. A senator is someone who manages a small cabal of specialist experts who collectively hold more knowledge than any one head could ever fit. The job can’t be done by one person, its a coordinated team effort.
sn41 6y ago
No... If I recall right, that was Steve King. Steve King was a congressman, not a senator. Maligning a single congressman does not invalidate the basic point that a lot of senators are making.
- scarface74 6y ago
  Or the entire Senate calling the wrong CEO in to testify? https://money.cnn.com/2016/10/27/media/att-time-warner-senate-confusion/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2016/10/27/media/att-time-warner-senat... Can you name one positive law with regards to tech that the government has passed in the last 20 years? During the last hearing, many of the representatives were more concerned about Google and Facebook being “unfair” to conservatives. Well that and grilling Zuckerburg about Twitter’s practices.
  - qppo 6y ago
    That's not what the article you linked says. To the question though there really haven't been many federal laws regarding tech at all. It's kind of hard to find an example of anything that directly focuses on tech and has been around long enough to make a judgement whether it was good or bad.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      There have been plenty of laws. The two most famous ones are the DMCA and COPPA. And then there are the ones that were only stopped because of massive protests like SOPA and PIPA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA Not to mention regulations that killed the concept of net Neutrality. There are also constant mumblings about passing laws against encryption that the government can’t decrypt. The Snowden leaks should scare anyone about giving the government more power. It was in 1996, but there is also the CDA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act
Proziam 6y ago
Google does make a smartphone, and if my parents are any example, every smartphone is an iPhone just like every gaming system is an xbox.
branchesncheckz 6y ago
Ironically enough, I think that's the problem that lobbyists were intended to mitigate. You can't expect legislators to be experts on every technical topic, but in an ideal world you could retain subject matter experts to give good information to any congressperson who needed it. It's not a bad idea in theory, but you run into the classic problem of deciding how to define "good information".
- takeda 6y ago
  I don't think lobbying is bad, the problem isn't lobbying, it is the money required to make senators listen to them. That is the element that is corrupting everything. Also senators can, and often do is have experts and have them provide sworn statements about given subject.
- wasdfff 6y ago
  Congresspeople do have access to experts. Their staffers are brilliant. The issue is that ultimately what motivates any politician is moneyed interests, and not collective good.
actuator 6y ago
I don't understand the issue completely, so the case may have merit but it's not like the current admin doesn't have an axe to grind with them. Might be just electioneering antics but look at this tweet: https://twitter.com/EricTrump/status/1303288007357796353 https://twitter.com/EricTrump/status/1303288007357796353
- 9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
  I'm pretty sure all of your politicians have axes to grind, for different reasons.
cheph 6y ago
So the reasoning here is if there are dumb legislators we should just defer to Google on how they should be regulated?
- whereistimbo 6y ago
  Not defer to Google, but a smarter legislator.
- rodonn 6y ago
  No, we should defer to the career antitrust experts at the DOJ and FTC as well the academics who study anti-trust and competition (a mix of mostly legal and economic professors).
  - scarface74 6y ago
    You mean the “career” experts that are just as beholden to the whims of the President? Or in the case of the FTC that gave the cable companies more power and upheld states blocking municipal broadband and got rid of net neutrality?
manigandham 6y ago
That's not what happened. The question was asking why a child saw a family member in an ad while playing a game. The Congressman just held up an iPhone while asking but it had nothing to do with the hardware. Of course there are numerous factors that may have contributed to the ad (and maybe Google wasn't involved) but they went with the smartass answer and the media ran with that narrative instead. It's not the greatest question but it's much more valid than what people are assuming it was. Video of the question (and notice the title): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmuROTmazco&t=60 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmuROTmazco&t=60
- rtx 6y ago
  How does this happen two different comments about one incident captured on video.
  - nerdponx 6y ago
    Because people don't watch the original video, they read spin articles about the incident.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    Read the comments on the video. People don't really comprehend much of the content they consume and are easily steered by headlines.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- JakeKalstad 6y ago
  The kid dressed up like the monopoly man in the background was a welcomed surprise.
- lawrenceyan 6y ago
  Watched the video, and there was just a random guy dressed up with a mustache and top hat sitting behind the camera during the entire hearing?

Same senators who thought Google made iPhones? Not defending Google but I am saying that most of those senators are not the holders of truth when it comes to technology.

Razengan 6y ago

I don’t know, some people here seem pretty confident in the knowledge of senators etc. when it comes to calls for investigations into Apple.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> most of those senators are not the holders of truth when it comes to technology They don’t have to be. Their staffers do. I’ve worked with a number of staffers on these questions for about three years now. They’re some of the smartest people I’ve worked with in my career, which has centred around Wall Street and Silicon Valley.

mondoshawan 6y ago
So why aren't they the senators instead of the morons they back?
- qaq 6y ago
  would people actually vote for them?
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    Combining brains and charisma is very rare in a politician. Obama being the textbook example - senior law school lecturer but also has the emotional depth and natural charm.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      And he was accused of being a “secret Muslim” trying to bring Sharia law by a large percentage of the population. That and trying to use the military to “takeover” Texas.
    - wasdfff 6y ago
      I’d think the list is shorter of charismatic politicians who hadn’t gone to a top notch law school. Plenty use brains and charm. Even spineless hacks like Mitch McConnel know how to be charismatic around wealthy republicans, and are brilliant, just brilliantly evil.
- HatchedLake721 6y ago
  Because being smart is not a golden ticket or the only quality required to become a senator/politician.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  You need to be a certain type of animal to be a successful politician. Especially in the US where the power per person in the senate especially is enormous. The house of commons has 600 more MPs for 5x less population.
- Broken_Hippo 6y ago
  Because a senator should know how to listen to others. They cannot be an expert on everything. Heck, these folks are making rules about medicine, pollution, car safety, tech issues, teaching, school lunches, interstate highways, commerce, military, child toy standards, what sorts of meat to allow in, and lots of other things I can't think up off of the top of my head. No one can be an expert on all of them - why we would suddenly expect them all to be an expert on this is beyond me. IIRC, an education in law is pretty common, which would be expected. (I know the system isn't perfect and not everyone listens to educated voices and in a perfect world, there would be a range of knowledge in the elected body itself). Edited for a missed comma.
  - doukdouk 6y ago
    I think you missed the point - representatives should be expert (at a minimum) in HN interests or come from the same demographics (better) as HN commentators. Anything else means they are "morons", to use the word of the previous commentator.
- wasdfff 6y ago
  The staffer is a specialist. Intimate knowledge of highway infrastructure, or technology issues alone do not make a senator. A senator is someone who manages a small cabal of specialist experts who collectively hold more knowledge than any one head could ever fit. The job can’t be done by one person, its a coordinated team effort.

sn41 6y ago

No... If I recall right, that was Steve King. Steve King was a congressman, not a senator. Maligning a single congressman does not invalidate the basic point that a lot of senators are making.

scarface74 6y ago
Or the entire Senate calling the wrong CEO in to testify? https://money.cnn.com/2016/10/27/media/att-time-warner-senate-confusion/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2016/10/27/media/att-time-warner-senat... Can you name one positive law with regards to tech that the government has passed in the last 20 years? During the last hearing, many of the representatives were more concerned about Google and Facebook being “unfair” to conservatives. Well that and grilling Zuckerburg about Twitter’s practices.
- qppo 6y ago
  That's not what the article you linked says. To the question though there really haven't been many federal laws regarding tech at all. It's kind of hard to find an example of anything that directly focuses on tech and has been around long enough to make a judgement whether it was good or bad.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    There have been plenty of laws. The two most famous ones are the DMCA and COPPA. And then there are the ones that were only stopped because of massive protests like SOPA and PIPA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA Not to mention regulations that killed the concept of net Neutrality. There are also constant mumblings about passing laws against encryption that the government can’t decrypt. The Snowden leaks should scare anyone about giving the government more power. It was in 1996, but there is also the CDA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act

Proziam 6y ago

Google does make a smartphone, and if my parents are any example, every smartphone is an iPhone just like every gaming system is an xbox.

branchesncheckz 6y ago

Ironically enough, I think that's the problem that lobbyists were intended to mitigate. You can't expect legislators to be experts on every technical topic, but in an ideal world you could retain subject matter experts to give good information to any congressperson who needed it. It's not a bad idea in theory, but you run into the classic problem of deciding how to define "good information".

takeda 6y ago
I don't think lobbying is bad, the problem isn't lobbying, it is the money required to make senators listen to them. That is the element that is corrupting everything. Also senators can, and often do is have experts and have them provide sworn statements about given subject.
wasdfff 6y ago
Congresspeople do have access to experts. Their staffers are brilliant. The issue is that ultimately what motivates any politician is moneyed interests, and not collective good.

actuator 6y ago

I don't understand the issue completely, so the case may have merit but it's not like the current admin doesn't have an axe to grind with them. Might be just electioneering antics but look at this tweet: https://twitter.com/EricTrump/status/1303288007357796353 https://twitter.com/EricTrump/status/1303288007357796353

9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
I'm pretty sure all of your politicians have axes to grind, for different reasons.

cheph 6y ago

So the reasoning here is if there are dumb legislators we should just defer to Google on how they should be regulated?

whereistimbo 6y ago
Not defer to Google, but a smarter legislator.
rodonn 6y ago
No, we should defer to the career antitrust experts at the DOJ and FTC as well the academics who study anti-trust and competition (a mix of mostly legal and economic professors).
- scarface74 6y ago
  You mean the “career” experts that are just as beholden to the whims of the President? Or in the case of the FTC that gave the cable companies more power and upheld states blocking municipal broadband and got rid of net neutrality?

manigandham 6y ago

That's not what happened. The question was asking why a child saw a family member in an ad while playing a game. The Congressman just held up an iPhone while asking but it had nothing to do with the hardware. Of course there are numerous factors that may have contributed to the ad (and maybe Google wasn't involved) but they went with the smartass answer and the media ran with that narrative instead. It's not the greatest question but it's much more valid than what people are assuming it was. Video of the question (and notice the title): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmuROTmazco&t=60 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmuROTmazco&t=60

rtx 6y ago
How does this happen two different comments about one incident captured on video.
- nerdponx 6y ago
  Because people don't watch the original video, they read spin articles about the incident.
- manigandham 6y ago
  Read the comments on the video. People don't really comprehend much of the content they consume and are easily steered by headlines.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
JakeKalstad 6y ago
The kid dressed up like the monopoly man in the background was a welcomed surprise.
lawrenceyan 6y ago
Watched the video, and there was just a random guy dressed up with a mustache and top hat sitting behind the camera during the entire hearing?