3 ms·

So what? Everyone everywhere does that about sensitive stuff. How many times have you heard- call me about it I don’t want to put it in writing.

smt88 3y ago
So you believe our legal system should not punish executives of a company that is: - publicly traded - more powerful than many entire countries - committing crimes ...when those executives explicitly switched to disappearing messaging in order to cover up those crimes? Context matters. I don't want to live in a world where people can avoid prosecution just by deleting evidence.
- ETH_start 3y ago
  Punishing them solely for their success is unfair. If power accumulated through capturing natural monopolies is the issue, then we need to address that directly with public funding of open source and decentralized alternatives that can become the market standard. Not punish people who fill the gaps the public left, by effectively providing essential services.
  - ameister14 3y ago
    So this wasn't a natural monopoly because the high cost of entry isn't the sole or even arguably primary barrier to competition, and that's not the issue.
  - seankurtz 3y ago
    I think you really ought to justify your use of the terminology "natural monopoly". To the extent that such a thing exists, is this not exactly what we have anti-trust laws to prevent? It seems to me that we can, have, and should punish people for success if that success is likely to lead to well known kinds of market failure, and that such a policy is generally non-controversial outside of the most extreme forms of libertarian political philosophies (which unfortunately, are disproportionately prevalent in big tech and likely to get the whole industry in serious hot water). Certainly, you could make the same "natural monopoly" argument against just about every serious anti-trust action that has taken place in the past. It didn't work then and I don't think its going to work now. Pretending that closed platforms that exist on computer networks (and are not themselves networks) somehow makes this all different is not very convincing. Network effects, as we've come to understand the term, are not new, and have existed before computer networks. To the extent they exist, it's evidence of need for intervention because of a clear failure of a market to self regulate (what some may call a "natural" or just a regular monopoly) and maintain a competitive market, not evidence that everything is okay. I also seriously take issue with the idea that Google provides an "essential service". Power, food, water, and you could make an argument for computer and communications infrastructure, are "essential". Google search is not. If it disappeared, society would soldier on and we would all be fine. At worst it would be a minor inconvenience for users and a headache for IT departments and developers.
    - ETH_start 3y ago
      I think anti-trust laws are unjust for precisely that reason: they punish people solely for being successful. I also offered an alternative solution to private interests capturing natural monopolies: the state subsidizing a public option that can do that. My preference would be state funding for the development of open source software and decentralized platforms that can substitute for proprietary software and centrally managed platforms. In fact, the state is ideally situated to fund this kind of public goods development, as it is the only legal entity with a broad enough tax collective apparatus to capture the gains from such investments. As for essential/non-essential, perhaps you're right in terms of terminology. In any case, internet search is a widely used and extremely valuable service that enhances quality of life. >such a policy is generally non-controversial outside of the most extreme forms of libertarian political philosophies (which unfortunately, are disproportionately prevalent in big tech and likely to get the whole industry in serious hot water). Something being non-controversial doesn't make it right. It was uncontroversial anti-libertarian ideology that found a way to justify imprisoning hundreds of thousands of elderly people for a year during the COVID pandemic: https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5969825 https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5969825
  - CJefferson 3y ago
    Competing with google in many areas is effectively impossible, due to their patent portfolio.
    - ETH_start 3y ago
      Then that is the problem that should be addressed.
- Sakos 3y ago
  I'm utterly appalled at how vigorously people are defending Google here. These are not the good guys. These aren't deserving of extra protection from the rabble. They can defend themselves in court with the billions of dollars they have. The kind of power and influence Google wields requires a higher standard. It's not being punished for success. It's ensuring that success doesn't allow them to subvert the law whenever they want. God forbid we have a functioning justice system anywhere.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > These aren't deserving of extra protection from the rabble Agree. But they shouldn’t be denied any protections we plebeians would expect and be afforded.
  - ikiris 3y ago
    A lot of them aren't so much actually defending Google here but eventually show they either a) think they're just smarter than the entire legal profession, or like eth_ below just hate the idea of law/government in general.
  - dyauspitr 3y ago
    On the relative scale of corporations in America, to me they are far and away the good guys.
yau8edq12i 3y ago
That only works in dreamland. Banks and traders must record all calls by law, for example. https://www.bankingdive.com/news/sec-cftc-fine-11-banks-18b-in-record-keeping-probe/632870/ https://www.bankingdive.com/news/sec-cftc-fine-11-banks-18b-... > The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) fined 11 Wall Street banks and brokerages more than $1.8 billion in a long-anticipated move to curb finance employees’ use of unapproved messaging platforms and companies’ failures to keep accurate records of those communications, the regulators said Tuesday. But it's not a "cool" tech company so you don't hear about it on HN.
yard2010 3y ago
Last time I heard it ppl were almost killed and whistle blowers were assassinated by suicide. No airplanes here but the same shady evil practice. This is why they probably removed the "don't be evil" from their code of conduct.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  > Last time I heard it ppl were almost killed and whistle blowers were assassinated by suicide. Not for nothing, but as a paramedic, the number of patients who've sworn black and blue that they're "no longer suicidal", "no longer a threat", "if anything happens to me, it definitely wasn't suicide" who ... went on to attempt or commit suicide in very short order is non-trivial.

smt88 3y ago

So you believe our legal system should not punish executives of a company that is: - publicly traded - more powerful than many entire countries - committing crimes ...when those executives explicitly switched to disappearing messaging in order to cover up those crimes? Context matters. I don't want to live in a world where people can avoid prosecution just by deleting evidence.

ETH_start 3y ago
Punishing them solely for their success is unfair. If power accumulated through capturing natural monopolies is the issue, then we need to address that directly with public funding of open source and decentralized alternatives that can become the market standard. Not punish people who fill the gaps the public left, by effectively providing essential services.
- ameister14 3y ago
  So this wasn't a natural monopoly because the high cost of entry isn't the sole or even arguably primary barrier to competition, and that's not the issue.
- seankurtz 3y ago
  I think you really ought to justify your use of the terminology "natural monopoly". To the extent that such a thing exists, is this not exactly what we have anti-trust laws to prevent? It seems to me that we can, have, and should punish people for success if that success is likely to lead to well known kinds of market failure, and that such a policy is generally non-controversial outside of the most extreme forms of libertarian political philosophies (which unfortunately, are disproportionately prevalent in big tech and likely to get the whole industry in serious hot water). Certainly, you could make the same "natural monopoly" argument against just about every serious anti-trust action that has taken place in the past. It didn't work then and I don't think its going to work now. Pretending that closed platforms that exist on computer networks (and are not themselves networks) somehow makes this all different is not very convincing. Network effects, as we've come to understand the term, are not new, and have existed before computer networks. To the extent they exist, it's evidence of need for intervention because of a clear failure of a market to self regulate (what some may call a "natural" or just a regular monopoly) and maintain a competitive market, not evidence that everything is okay. I also seriously take issue with the idea that Google provides an "essential service". Power, food, water, and you could make an argument for computer and communications infrastructure, are "essential". Google search is not. If it disappeared, society would soldier on and we would all be fine. At worst it would be a minor inconvenience for users and a headache for IT departments and developers.
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    I think anti-trust laws are unjust for precisely that reason: they punish people solely for being successful. I also offered an alternative solution to private interests capturing natural monopolies: the state subsidizing a public option that can do that. My preference would be state funding for the development of open source software and decentralized platforms that can substitute for proprietary software and centrally managed platforms. In fact, the state is ideally situated to fund this kind of public goods development, as it is the only legal entity with a broad enough tax collective apparatus to capture the gains from such investments. As for essential/non-essential, perhaps you're right in terms of terminology. In any case, internet search is a widely used and extremely valuable service that enhances quality of life. >such a policy is generally non-controversial outside of the most extreme forms of libertarian political philosophies (which unfortunately, are disproportionately prevalent in big tech and likely to get the whole industry in serious hot water). Something being non-controversial doesn't make it right. It was uncontroversial anti-libertarian ideology that found a way to justify imprisoning hundreds of thousands of elderly people for a year during the COVID pandemic: https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5969825 https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5969825
- CJefferson 3y ago
  Competing with google in many areas is effectively impossible, due to their patent portfolio.
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    Then that is the problem that should be addressed.
Sakos 3y ago
I'm utterly appalled at how vigorously people are defending Google here. These are not the good guys. These aren't deserving of extra protection from the rabble. They can defend themselves in court with the billions of dollars they have. The kind of power and influence Google wields requires a higher standard. It's not being punished for success. It's ensuring that success doesn't allow them to subvert the law whenever they want. God forbid we have a functioning justice system anywhere.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > These aren't deserving of extra protection from the rabble Agree. But they shouldn’t be denied any protections we plebeians would expect and be afforded.
- ikiris 3y ago
  A lot of them aren't so much actually defending Google here but eventually show they either a) think they're just smarter than the entire legal profession, or like eth_ below just hate the idea of law/government in general.
- dyauspitr 3y ago
  On the relative scale of corporations in America, to me they are far and away the good guys.

yau8edq12i 3y ago

That only works in dreamland. Banks and traders must record all calls by law, for example. https://www.bankingdive.com/news/sec-cftc-fine-11-banks-18b-in-record-keeping-probe/632870/ https://www.bankingdive.com/news/sec-cftc-fine-11-banks-18b-... > The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) fined 11 Wall Street banks and brokerages more than $1.8 billion in a long-anticipated move to curb finance employees’ use of unapproved messaging platforms and companies’ failures to keep accurate records of those communications, the regulators said Tuesday. But it's not a "cool" tech company so you don't hear about it on HN.

yard2010 3y ago

Last time I heard it ppl were almost killed and whistle blowers were assassinated by suicide. No airplanes here but the same shady evil practice. This is why they probably removed the "don't be evil" from their code of conduct.

FireBeyond 3y ago
> Last time I heard it ppl were almost killed and whistle blowers were assassinated by suicide. Not for nothing, but as a paramedic, the number of patients who've sworn black and blue that they're "no longer suicidal", "no longer a threat", "if anything happens to me, it definitely wasn't suicide" who ... went on to attempt or commit suicide in very short order is non-trivial.