6 ms·

>Xiaomi worth billions of dollars, not 1.4 trillion, but way more than most companies. I'm referring to Google with that valuation. >We don't commonly call bi

by cwhiz 6y ago

>Xiaomi worth billions of dollars, not 1.4 trillion, but way more than most companies. I'm referring to Google with that valuation. >We don't commonly call billionaires who live in the middle east, china, and other non-western countries "oligarchs", do you know why? Propaganda? An oligarch is a rich person with a lot of political influence. Sounds like an average billionaire to me. >People call out Google all. the. time. There's an article here weekly about dumping Google, finding alternatives, praying for antitrust regulation, etc I don't think I have ever seen a mainstream publication refer to Google apps and services as spyware. Which of course is what they are. >Why are you so upset about Xiaomi getting called out? Only annoyed at the obviously biased language.

missedthecue 6y ago
How much political influence do you think someone like Bezos really has? Everyone in washington hates him. No one wants to do favors for him. They drag him in front of congress do get a bunch of soundbites to play next election cycle. They win elections on shutting down his headquarter plans. They want to break up his company, raise his taxes on unrealized capital gains, they want to force him to divest his personal investments like WaPo. Same goes for other billionaires. You think there's a lot of love for Ken Griffin? Or the Google founders? Or Jamie Dimon? Of course not. Billionaires are a common bogeyman for the populists that have ruled the capitol for the last 10 years or so.
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  On the flip side, there were municipal governments literally giving Amazon powers over taxation and spending[1] to get them to set up their headquarters in their city. I think this is quite a bit of political power myself. [1] https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/amazon-city-benefits-second-headquarters_n_5beb511ae4b044bbb1a9ebf2?ri18n=true https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/amazon-city-benefits-sec...
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    I wouldn't call someone with sway over municipal governments an oligarch though.
- rchaud 6y ago
  > Everyone in washington hates him. In public, sure. Behind the scenes, they're taking meetings with his lobbyists, and somehow the tax raise never happens despite politicians talking about ad nauseam. Part of modern politics is running a kabuki theatre of performative populism on the campaign trail. Not much happens once they are in office, because you need quick wins ahead of the next election.
  - john2010 6y ago
    + 1 also note that the Asian billionaires are learning for people like bezos/gates. In public they may be hate figures - but everyone orders from Amazon. Tax breaks for large companies. (i.e) use thinktank to pass legislation to make everything they do legal.
  - varjag 6y ago
    You write this on the same day the President called for Amazon workers to unionize.
    - rchaud 6y ago
      Which is a performative act of solidarity with warehouse workers. What happens if those in right-to-work states unionize and get sacked? Biden isn't shouldering any of the risks they are. Actions matter more than words. At this time, it's not even clear if Biden will go to the mat for a nationwide $15/hr minimum. That would do far more to incentivize Amazon to improve working conditions, as its $15/hr starting rates would no longer be competitive.
      - varjag 6y ago
        This is some 5d chess rationalization. There would be no calls to unionize Amazon if the govt was in Bezos' pocket.
- Daho0n 6y ago
  >the populists that have ruled the capitol for the last 10 years or so. So the instant someone is elected they start calling Random Joe for funding their next campaign? Of course not. Politicians talk to people who help fund them, that or they are out. Having a politician's ear is power that Random Joe doesn't have. Using Bezos is disingenious. How about Musk or Bill Gates or one of the many rich oligarch families who have the same name as former presidents? Don't pretend money has less power in US politics than in Russian politics. If anything it is worse.
godelski 6y ago
> I don't think I have ever seen a mainstream publication refer to Google apps and services as spyware. Which of course is what they are. You seem pretty active on HN so I'm a bit skeptical that you honestly believe this. But I'll respond in good faith anyways. Here's the first result from Google (didn't even use DDG) - (Washington Post) Goodbye, Chrome: Google’s Web browser has become spy software[0] But since you're active I'm sure you know about The Social Dilemma, Snowden, etc. I've seen episodes on 60 Minutes, CNN, Fox, and pretty much everywhere that calls criticism to companies like Google and Facebook. Does China get called out more often? Yeah. Why? Because we're in a cold war with them. But still in many of these pieces I've seen them make slights at American tech companies. Things like saying that what they do is bad, but what China does is worse. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/06/21/google-chrome-has-become-surveillance-software-its-time-switch/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/06/21/google-...
chomp 6y ago
I know you were referring to Google, that is why I made the point about Google. Xiaomi is a tech company with a personal data spying program and is worth maybe 50 billion, and supposedly the "4th most valuable startup in the world," if you trust Wikipedia. My point is that the valuation is based on the profit potential that investors see, not how ethical either company actually is. And both derive a non-zero amount of that value from spying on humans. The Russian oligarchs are a group of people that grabbed large amounts of wealth by reaping the downfall of the Soviet Union. They are a very specific, well connected group of people outside of normal Russian billionaires. The reason specifically that they are oligarchs instead of just normal billionaires is that they are very plugged into the government and sway its operation. And I know there's some cynics out there that will be like "well that's just billionaires in general" but I encourage you to learn about the leverage this group of people have on normal government operations. With regards to the observation that no one refers to Google as spyware, I don't think I see this either. But I do see tons of mainstream articles raising the point that Google spies on users. The problem is that (it feels like, at least) only us tech-inclined seem to care: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferhicks/2020/10/27/heres-how-2020-created-a-tipping-point-in-trust-and-digital-privacy/?sh=f9bf8894fc5e https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferhicks/2020/10/27/heres-... >The report found that 80% of Americans think at least one tech giant is listening in on their conversations: Facebook at 68%; TikTok at 53%; and Google at 45%. But only 18% said they had deleted Facebook because of privacy concerns. I fully agree Google is just an advertising company dressed up, and also further propose that its open source contributions and tech projects are its robing. I think there's still room to criticize other companies however, especially since privacy issues from companies like Xiaomi don't often get featured on HN.
- ckozlowski 6y ago
  There's a big difference between Google exploiting private data to sell you more things, and a different company exploiting private data to hand over to a police agency that arrests individuals for having the wrong political views. I'm not suggesting the former is without fault, and fault by one does not absolve another. But you're right in that these are two very, very different things.
  - 6y ago
KoftaBob 6y ago
"Russian Oligarch" has a more specific meaning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarch

by cwhiz 6y ago

missedthecue 6y ago

How much political influence do you think someone like Bezos really has? Everyone in washington hates him. No one wants to do favors for him. They drag him in front of congress do get a bunch of soundbites to play next election cycle. They win elections on shutting down his headquarter plans. They want to break up his company, raise his taxes on unrealized capital gains, they want to force him to divest his personal investments like WaPo. Same goes for other billionaires. You think there's a lot of love for Ken Griffin? Or the Google founders? Or Jamie Dimon? Of course not. Billionaires are a common bogeyman for the populists that have ruled the capitol for the last 10 years or so.

AlexandrB 6y ago
On the flip side, there were municipal governments literally giving Amazon powers over taxation and spending[1] to get them to set up their headquarters in their city. I think this is quite a bit of political power myself. [1] https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/amazon-city-benefits-second-headquarters_n_5beb511ae4b044bbb1a9ebf2?ri18n=true https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/amazon-city-benefits-sec...
- missedthecue 6y ago
  I wouldn't call someone with sway over municipal governments an oligarch though.
rchaud 6y ago
> Everyone in washington hates him. In public, sure. Behind the scenes, they're taking meetings with his lobbyists, and somehow the tax raise never happens despite politicians talking about ad nauseam. Part of modern politics is running a kabuki theatre of performative populism on the campaign trail. Not much happens once they are in office, because you need quick wins ahead of the next election.
- john2010 6y ago
  + 1 also note that the Asian billionaires are learning for people like bezos/gates. In public they may be hate figures - but everyone orders from Amazon. Tax breaks for large companies. (i.e) use thinktank to pass legislation to make everything they do legal.
- varjag 6y ago
  You write this on the same day the President called for Amazon workers to unionize.
  - rchaud 6y ago
    Which is a performative act of solidarity with warehouse workers. What happens if those in right-to-work states unionize and get sacked? Biden isn't shouldering any of the risks they are. Actions matter more than words. At this time, it's not even clear if Biden will go to the mat for a nationwide $15/hr minimum. That would do far more to incentivize Amazon to improve working conditions, as its $15/hr starting rates would no longer be competitive.
    - varjag 6y ago
      This is some 5d chess rationalization. There would be no calls to unionize Amazon if the govt was in Bezos' pocket.
Daho0n 6y ago
>the populists that have ruled the capitol for the last 10 years or so. So the instant someone is elected they start calling Random Joe for funding their next campaign? Of course not. Politicians talk to people who help fund them, that or they are out. Having a politician's ear is power that Random Joe doesn't have. Using Bezos is disingenious. How about Musk or Bill Gates or one of the many rich oligarch families who have the same name as former presidents? Don't pretend money has less power in US politics than in Russian politics. If anything it is worse.

godelski 6y ago

> I don't think I have ever seen a mainstream publication refer to Google apps and services as spyware. Which of course is what they are. You seem pretty active on HN so I'm a bit skeptical that you honestly believe this. But I'll respond in good faith anyways. Here's the first result from Google (didn't even use DDG) - (Washington Post) Goodbye, Chrome: Google’s Web browser has become spy software[0] But since you're active I'm sure you know about The Social Dilemma, Snowden, etc. I've seen episodes on 60 Minutes, CNN, Fox, and pretty much everywhere that calls criticism to companies like Google and Facebook. Does China get called out more often? Yeah. Why? Because we're in a cold war with them. But still in many of these pieces I've seen them make slights at American tech companies. Things like saying that what they do is bad, but what China does is worse. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/06/21/google-chrome-has-become-surveillance-software-its-time-switch/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/06/21/google-...

chomp 6y ago

I know you were referring to Google, that is why I made the point about Google. Xiaomi is a tech company with a personal data spying program and is worth maybe 50 billion, and supposedly the "4th most valuable startup in the world," if you trust Wikipedia. My point is that the valuation is based on the profit potential that investors see, not how ethical either company actually is. And both derive a non-zero amount of that value from spying on humans. The Russian oligarchs are a group of people that grabbed large amounts of wealth by reaping the downfall of the Soviet Union. They are a very specific, well connected group of people outside of normal Russian billionaires. The reason specifically that they are oligarchs instead of just normal billionaires is that they are very plugged into the government and sway its operation. And I know there's some cynics out there that will be like "well that's just billionaires in general" but I encourage you to learn about the leverage this group of people have on normal government operations. With regards to the observation that no one refers to Google as spyware, I don't think I see this either. But I do see tons of mainstream articles raising the point that Google spies on users. The problem is that (it feels like, at least) only us tech-inclined seem to care: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferhicks/2020/10/27/heres-how-2020-created-a-tipping-point-in-trust-and-digital-privacy/?sh=f9bf8894fc5e https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferhicks/2020/10/27/heres-... >The report found that 80% of Americans think at least one tech giant is listening in on their conversations: Facebook at 68%; TikTok at 53%; and Google at 45%. But only 18% said they had deleted Facebook because of privacy concerns. I fully agree Google is just an advertising company dressed up, and also further propose that its open source contributions and tech projects are its robing. I think there's still room to criticize other companies however, especially since privacy issues from companies like Xiaomi don't often get featured on HN.

ckozlowski 6y ago
There's a big difference between Google exploiting private data to sell you more things, and a different company exploiting private data to hand over to a police agency that arrests individuals for having the wrong political views. I'm not suggesting the former is without fault, and fault by one does not absolve another. But you're right in that these are two very, very different things.
- 6y ago

KoftaBob 6y ago

"Russian Oligarch" has a more specific meaning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarch