In the top 3 most insightful pieces of journalism I have read in 2016. Whatever your opinion on Julian Assange, this is a fascinating look into details of how power structures are evolving in the 21st century. Makes me think the government has a much tighter pulse on what's going on than I had previously thought. Perhaps part of the trick is they want you to think they're idiots.
Yeah, I've been browsing hacker news for about 3 years actually, but never felt an impulse to comment until now. Helps that I've entered a more political period of my life recently.
It goes into specific details that only someone who is linked into these events would be able to describe and recognize. Someone like Assange, before he was exiled. Of course most of these people aren't open about these kinds of things either. I'm very interested in how large tech companies are wielding their power politically, because they get to bypass borders governments cannot. We've seen this with multinational corporations for a very long time of course, but nothing with the capabilities like Google-when practically everyone is living with a smartphone in their pocket at all times, with all the data, big and small, that creates. I think despite his biases, Assange does a great job at capturing how this is currently evolving.
I found it interesting in the blunt way it described the connections between Silicon Valley and Washington politics; the way they are enmeshed and influence one another; the way one acts using the other as cover.
This is just how the world works. Of course a billion dollar corporation engages lobbyists, political hacks and other partisans to help them achieve their goals.
Clues? Support for the TPP is obvious: concurrent with 70 years of global economic expansion has been expansion of free trade. In that context, in as much as TPP expands free trade, the default answer to the TPP should be, "yes, please".
From a tactical political perspective, if the TPP doesn't happen then most Westerner observers expect China to lead a regional trade pact. That would bind Asian countries more strongly, politically, to China. So from a realpolitik perspective, the answer again would be, "yes, please".
Both of those are reasons why a company like Google and a social progressive/free market politician like Hillary Clinton would instinctively support the TPP.
By contrast to the pros, the cons with the TPP are much more nuanced and specific. With trade pacts, usually you take the good with the bad; that there are negative aspects to the TPP wouldn't normally be a good reason to oppose it. However, given that U.S. state and federal governments have abandoned support for manufacturing specifically, and blue collar jobs more generally, despite decades of economists unanimously making it clear that government MUST make HUGE investments to mitigate the costs of economic dislocation, we've arrived at a point in the U.S. where it's no longer politically viable (and for good reason) to continue to promote free trade at all costs.
So this is why you'd see a politician like Hillary make an about face (sincerely or opportunistically, for w'ever it mattered) while a company like Google would continue to promote it. Hillary has to respond to the political environment, whereas on balance for a company like Google the TPP still makes sense.
You don't need clues. The writing is in huge lettering all over the place. All you have to do is stay current on modern events. Although, to understand the full story here you need to have been staying current since at least the 1990s, when the WTO and NAFTA came into being.
Liberal and conservative thinkers, academics and businessmen, mostly travel in the same circles. People like Hillary Clinton have been part of these circles for decades. Nouveau riche like Schmidt invariably gravitate to the same circles. Anybody can join these circles--either get rich, become a successful politician, or become a widely published academic. But there's no active conspiracy going on between these people anymore than engineers conspire when forming a startup--they merely share the same ideas, which have been roughly the consensus view on liberal politics and economics for some time, and desire to be at the forefront wrt applying those ideas. The TPP is just happening near an inflection point in modern political and economic thinking, and it's catching alot of people off balance.
Then people like Assange or other critics come along and "expose" this stuff like it's been hidden the whole time. Um, no....
Just keep a regular subscription to the New York Times, Financial Times, or similar paper for several years and you'll eventually see the shared mindset emerge. Stay away from fringe publications (which the Wall Street Journal is increasingly becoming), because they tend to be contrarian and typically serve to confuse. At the end of the day it's not about being wrong or right; you don't read other people's opinions to decide what's right or wrong. (Nor do you need them to be able to critique.) Rather, it's like following the stock market--to keep track of the ideas ruling the world you track the principle market in those ideas. They're all out in the open. The side-shows are distractions. And nobody is going to be able to predict the inflection points; anybody selling that is selling snake oil.
I am not up-to-date on the TPP, but my vague impression is it's 1) sort of like NAFTA but for a different set of countries, which 2) happens to include treaty obligations to implement IP laws that resemble SOPA/PIPA, and 3) was negotiated under more secretive than usual discussions. Is that roughly correct?
I think the hacker crowd (including Google) should be strongly opposing #2, and maybe also #3 for making it hard to object to #2 without objecting to the whole treaty, but #1 sounds like a thing that many reasonable people are likely to support, yeah.
From a hacker libertarian's perspective the TPP is pretty bad. I certainly dislike it. But if we're being honest, in the grand scheme of things it's not that big of a deal. Our world wouldn't end; the TPP would just end what little hope we had for looser IP restrictions, at least legislatively derived.
More importantly, almost nobody outside our community really cares about those IP restrictions, whether or not they matter. And from Google's perspective those restrictions are definitely a net benefit short- and medium-term, whether or not the dire predictions from the EFF pan out. Google makes their money from advertising; the bulk of people going onto the internet the world over do so to consume modern media; and stronger, US-like IP protections in other markets will accelerate the growth of media consumption by making American media companies more comfortable expanding and easing digital distribution overseas. And for better or worse American media companies are so huge and sophisticated they have the capability to induce tremendous amounts of consumption. More eyeballs spending more time on the Internet is more money for Google, period.
Our community also opposes the TPP because it will enforce private mediation of many trade disputes arising from domestic laws. I also dislike this aspect. In addition to being an engineer I also took a mid-career break to go to law school, so I have uncharacteristically informed opinions in this regard. But from a 10,000' perspective, this aspect is also unlikely to be significant short- or medium-term. At worse those mediations would generally favor U.S. companies, although going strictly by historical numbers they're not yet as unfair as domestic arbitration. Theoretically they'll hamper legislative autonomy, but trade agreements by their very nature will do that because the terms can't be rescinded unilaterally without international repercussions. Again, in the short- and medium- term they'll regularize business proceedings in some legally less developed jurisdictions. Long story short, it's all a net benefit for somebody like Google or basically any American corporation.
The reason why TPP is becoming increasingly less viable is because most of the gains will accrue to media and so-called "IP" companies, and almost all the costs will be borne by blue collar labor. Because the U.S. has weak and ineffective mechanisms for mitigating dislocation, the TPP is likely to increase real or at least perceived economic and political inequality. Significant opposition has not arisen because of the technical reasons that concern the hacker community, although enforced mediation is being used rather cynically (but understandably) to rally support from other interest groups.
As for secrecy, all trade agreements are negotiated secretly and always have been. You don't want everybody's finger in the pie, otherwise nothing would ever get done, especially in our modern political atmosphere where we suffer from paralysis because interest groups have forgotten how to compromise. And, yes, companies get to stick their finger in the pie on occasion because whether you like it or not, it's unrealistic to think that a multi-billion dollar conglomerate has economic interests equal to you or I. Once upon a time some non-corporate interests had a seat at the table; specifically, trade unions. But American conservatives and businesses have substantially diminished their economic, and thus their political, influence.
As politics has become more polarized, and as the influence of non-corporate interests has waned, so have negotiations become moderately less transparent. But many of those document "leaks" were no accident, and the only revelations were in fine print, which despite all the hand-wringing will only matter at the margins. The broad details were always known publicly, or at least to anybody paying attention. CEOs gossip like anybody else; anything a company knew would have been easily discoverable by...
Except for the IP sections of the TPP, which are quite controversial, the TPP is a great piece of work. It improves labor standards, provides mechanisms for contract disputes, eliminates a ton of tariffs, and aggressively promotes protection of the Earth.
The IP sections are controversial but also expected. The fact is countries like the US make most of their money on IP. Its workers spend most of their time generating new ideas, designs, media, inventions, new products and services, etc.
Although we often complain that manufacturing and assembly has moved elsewhere, the fact is that the most profitable parts have stayed here. I hate the DMCA and I hate how patents and copyrights impinge on small company innovation. but, at the same time, without IP protections, we'd basically be giving away our hard work for free. How would we get paid?
"Whether it is being just a company or “more than just a company,” Google’s geopolitical aspirations are firmly enmeshed within the foreign-policy agenda of the world’s largest superpower. As Google’s search and internet service monopoly grows, and as it enlarges its industrial surveillance cone to cover the majority of the world’s population, rapidly dominating the mobile phone market and racing to extend internet access in the global south, Google is steadily becoming the internet for many people. Its influence on the choices and behavior of the totality of individual human beings translates to real power to influence the course of history."
I think this quote from Stratfor's VP leaked email sums it well: "Google is getting WH [White House] and State Dept support and air cover. In reality they are doing things the CIA cannot do... "
Google has a foreign affair agenda and close ties with the State Dept.
The problem with having access to massive amounts of data and information is that it's too easy to see patterns and connections where there may only be noise.
20 years ago, I imagined that access to endless amounts of information would accelerate global enlightenment. Now, new conspiracy theories seem to come out almost daily. And, they quickly get passed around carelessly, especially by my family and friends. It seems too much information just causes a lot of panic and paranoia.
He could very well be right. But, I only wish that there were alternative analyses to consider.
Here's how I think about 24/7 free/cheap access to tons of information:
1. Almost anything can be addictive, including information.
2. Behaviors become part of an addiction by being used to numb or avoid emotional/physical pain, which requires us to ignore our own needs (assuming unpleasant emotions are expressions of needs going unmet).
3. Most cultures don't view things from the perspective of fundamental human needs.
4. We largely suck at addiction treatment.
5. We're living in the Information Age.
Therefore, we are living in a world where an addictive thing that's also necessary is so accessible, it's free or negligibly cheap most places in first-world countries, and we're largely clueless about how to deal with it.
I share the prediction you made 20 years ago & think we're on the brink of figuring out how to tackle things. I'm just starting to work on my personal attempt at it: fusing mindfulness with design thinking to create tech that doesn't disconnect us.
And neither is Wikileaks. Given the ever increasing noise/rant/innuendo ratios of what he emits, it's hard to justify the time investment in reading anything Assange has put out for several years, now.
I'm not a fan of Wikileaks but much of what the article states isn't a secret. It's clear that Google's founders for years has been trying to gain a political advantage over other corporations by being friendlier to the US govt. It makes sense since the US govt is behind the times and Google needs a friend in the US govt to make treaties that would give them an advantage over competitors in emerging markets. This is a win/win for both involved. I'm not saying this is acceptable/moral/desirable, I'm merely saying that this is how the real world of international politics works. I just wish more folks wouldn't think for a moment a corporation will stop being a corporation for the sake of it's founder's original intentions (assuming Schmidt and company were/are honest with us). At least in that clear headed acceptance of Google's agenda maybe we all can individually (and maybe collectively? I know it's quite a bit to ask.) adjust our strategies to limit their abuse of our data.
I love the "this isnt news" argument. "You shouldnt care about collusion revealed by Wikileaks/whoever because everyone kind of already knew about it."
"This is how the 'real world' works" Another bs argument. Yes. Those who have been paying attention already know what Assange is talking about. That does not excuse Google in any way.
"Don't be evil" is a pretty low bar to set. And Google is so corrupted at this point they can't even "live up to their founder's original intentions".
I never said you shouldn't care. But it seems you ass-umed that I said as much. But go ahead, pretend I did say that and fantasize you're the only person that's worried about the state of the world. I'll just be here popping my popcorn to see who else smacks you upside the head for your pearl clutching performity. ;)
37 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 80.0 ms ] threadhttps://hn.algolia.com/?query=assange%20google%20seems&type=...
Also highly misleading :).
From a tactical political perspective, if the TPP doesn't happen then most Westerner observers expect China to lead a regional trade pact. That would bind Asian countries more strongly, politically, to China. So from a realpolitik perspective, the answer again would be, "yes, please".
Both of those are reasons why a company like Google and a social progressive/free market politician like Hillary Clinton would instinctively support the TPP.
By contrast to the pros, the cons with the TPP are much more nuanced and specific. With trade pacts, usually you take the good with the bad; that there are negative aspects to the TPP wouldn't normally be a good reason to oppose it. However, given that U.S. state and federal governments have abandoned support for manufacturing specifically, and blue collar jobs more generally, despite decades of economists unanimously making it clear that government MUST make HUGE investments to mitigate the costs of economic dislocation, we've arrived at a point in the U.S. where it's no longer politically viable (and for good reason) to continue to promote free trade at all costs.
So this is why you'd see a politician like Hillary make an about face (sincerely or opportunistically, for w'ever it mattered) while a company like Google would continue to promote it. Hillary has to respond to the political environment, whereas on balance for a company like Google the TPP still makes sense.
You don't need clues. The writing is in huge lettering all over the place. All you have to do is stay current on modern events. Although, to understand the full story here you need to have been staying current since at least the 1990s, when the WTO and NAFTA came into being.
Liberal and conservative thinkers, academics and businessmen, mostly travel in the same circles. People like Hillary Clinton have been part of these circles for decades. Nouveau riche like Schmidt invariably gravitate to the same circles. Anybody can join these circles--either get rich, become a successful politician, or become a widely published academic. But there's no active conspiracy going on between these people anymore than engineers conspire when forming a startup--they merely share the same ideas, which have been roughly the consensus view on liberal politics and economics for some time, and desire to be at the forefront wrt applying those ideas. The TPP is just happening near an inflection point in modern political and economic thinking, and it's catching alot of people off balance.
Then people like Assange or other critics come along and "expose" this stuff like it's been hidden the whole time. Um, no....
Just keep a regular subscription to the New York Times, Financial Times, or similar paper for several years and you'll eventually see the shared mindset emerge. Stay away from fringe publications (which the Wall Street Journal is increasingly becoming), because they tend to be contrarian and typically serve to confuse. At the end of the day it's not about being wrong or right; you don't read other people's opinions to decide what's right or wrong. (Nor do you need them to be able to critique.) Rather, it's like following the stock market--to keep track of the ideas ruling the world you track the principle market in those ideas. They're all out in the open. The side-shows are distractions. And nobody is going to be able to predict the inflection points; anybody selling that is selling snake oil.
I think the hacker crowd (including Google) should be strongly opposing #2, and maybe also #3 for making it hard to object to #2 without objecting to the whole treaty, but #1 sounds like a thing that many reasonable people are likely to support, yeah.
More importantly, almost nobody outside our community really cares about those IP restrictions, whether or not they matter. And from Google's perspective those restrictions are definitely a net benefit short- and medium-term, whether or not the dire predictions from the EFF pan out. Google makes their money from advertising; the bulk of people going onto the internet the world over do so to consume modern media; and stronger, US-like IP protections in other markets will accelerate the growth of media consumption by making American media companies more comfortable expanding and easing digital distribution overseas. And for better or worse American media companies are so huge and sophisticated they have the capability to induce tremendous amounts of consumption. More eyeballs spending more time on the Internet is more money for Google, period.
Our community also opposes the TPP because it will enforce private mediation of many trade disputes arising from domestic laws. I also dislike this aspect. In addition to being an engineer I also took a mid-career break to go to law school, so I have uncharacteristically informed opinions in this regard. But from a 10,000' perspective, this aspect is also unlikely to be significant short- or medium-term. At worse those mediations would generally favor U.S. companies, although going strictly by historical numbers they're not yet as unfair as domestic arbitration. Theoretically they'll hamper legislative autonomy, but trade agreements by their very nature will do that because the terms can't be rescinded unilaterally without international repercussions. Again, in the short- and medium- term they'll regularize business proceedings in some legally less developed jurisdictions. Long story short, it's all a net benefit for somebody like Google or basically any American corporation.
The reason why TPP is becoming increasingly less viable is because most of the gains will accrue to media and so-called "IP" companies, and almost all the costs will be borne by blue collar labor. Because the U.S. has weak and ineffective mechanisms for mitigating dislocation, the TPP is likely to increase real or at least perceived economic and political inequality. Significant opposition has not arisen because of the technical reasons that concern the hacker community, although enforced mediation is being used rather cynically (but understandably) to rally support from other interest groups.
As for secrecy, all trade agreements are negotiated secretly and always have been. You don't want everybody's finger in the pie, otherwise nothing would ever get done, especially in our modern political atmosphere where we suffer from paralysis because interest groups have forgotten how to compromise. And, yes, companies get to stick their finger in the pie on occasion because whether you like it or not, it's unrealistic to think that a multi-billion dollar conglomerate has economic interests equal to you or I. Once upon a time some non-corporate interests had a seat at the table; specifically, trade unions. But American conservatives and businesses have substantially diminished their economic, and thus their political, influence.
As politics has become more polarized, and as the influence of non-corporate interests has waned, so have negotiations become moderately less transparent. But many of those document "leaks" were no accident, and the only revelations were in fine print, which despite all the hand-wringing will only matter at the margins. The broad details were always known publicly, or at least to anybody paying attention. CEOs gossip like anybody else; anything a company knew would have been easily discoverable by...
The IP sections are controversial but also expected. The fact is countries like the US make most of their money on IP. Its workers spend most of their time generating new ideas, designs, media, inventions, new products and services, etc.
Although we often complain that manufacturing and assembly has moved elsewhere, the fact is that the most profitable parts have stayed here. I hate the DMCA and I hate how patents and copyrights impinge on small company innovation. but, at the same time, without IP protections, we'd basically be giving away our hard work for free. How would we get paid?
"Whether it is being just a company or “more than just a company,” Google’s geopolitical aspirations are firmly enmeshed within the foreign-policy agenda of the world’s largest superpower. As Google’s search and internet service monopoly grows, and as it enlarges its industrial surveillance cone to cover the majority of the world’s population, rapidly dominating the mobile phone market and racing to extend internet access in the global south, Google is steadily becoming the internet for many people. Its influence on the choices and behavior of the totality of individual human beings translates to real power to influence the course of history."
Google has a foreign affair agenda and close ties with the State Dept.
20 years ago, I imagined that access to endless amounts of information would accelerate global enlightenment. Now, new conspiracy theories seem to come out almost daily. And, they quickly get passed around carelessly, especially by my family and friends. It seems too much information just causes a lot of panic and paranoia.
He could very well be right. But, I only wish that there were alternative analyses to consider.
1. Almost anything can be addictive, including information.
2. Behaviors become part of an addiction by being used to numb or avoid emotional/physical pain, which requires us to ignore our own needs (assuming unpleasant emotions are expressions of needs going unmet).
3. Most cultures don't view things from the perspective of fundamental human needs.
4. We largely suck at addiction treatment. 5. We're living in the Information Age.
Therefore, we are living in a world where an addictive thing that's also necessary is so accessible, it's free or negligibly cheap most places in first-world countries, and we're largely clueless about how to deal with it.
I share the prediction you made 20 years ago & think we're on the brink of figuring out how to tackle things. I'm just starting to work on my personal attempt at it: fusing mindfulness with design thinking to create tech that doesn't disconnect us.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9365520
"This is how the 'real world' works" Another bs argument. Yes. Those who have been paying attention already know what Assange is talking about. That does not excuse Google in any way.
"Don't be evil" is a pretty low bar to set. And Google is so corrupted at this point they can't even "live up to their founder's original intentions".