Why Google Should Be Afraid of a Missouri Republican's Google Probe (arstechnica.com) 231
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Republican attorney general of Missouri has launched an investigation into Google's business practices. Josh Hawley wants to know how Google handles user data. And he plans to look into whether Google is using its dominance in the search business to harm companies in other markets where Google competes. It's another sign of growing pressure Google is facing from the political right. Grassroots conservatives increasingly see Google as falling on the wrong side of the culture wars. So far that hasn't had a big impact in Washington policymaking. But with Hawley planning to run for the U.S. Senate next year, we could see more Republican hostility toward Google -- and perhaps other big technology companies -- in the coming years. The Hawley investigation will dig into whether Google violated Missouri's consumer-protection and antitrust laws. Specifically, Hawley will investigate: "Google's collection, use, and disclosure of information about Google users and their online activities," "Google's alleged misappropriation of online content from the websites of its competitors," and "Google's alleged manipulation of search results to preference websites owned by Google and to demote websites that compete with Google." States like Missouri have their own antitrust laws and the power to investigate company business conduct independently of the feds. So Hawley seems to be taking yet another look at those same issues to see if Google's conduct runs afoul of Missouri law.
We don't know if Hawley will get the Republican nomination or win his challenge to Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) next year, but people like him will surely be elected to the Senate in the coming decade. Hawley's decision to go after Google suggests that he sees some upside in being seen as an antagonist to a company that conservatives increasingly view with suspicion. More than that, it suggests that Hawley believes it's worth the risk of alienating the GOP's pro-business wing, which takes a dim view of strict antitrust enforcement even if it targets a company with close ties to Democrats.
We don't know if Hawley will get the Republican nomination or win his challenge to Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) next year, but people like him will surely be elected to the Senate in the coming decade. Hawley's decision to go after Google suggests that he sees some upside in being seen as an antagonist to a company that conservatives increasingly view with suspicion. More than that, it suggests that Hawley believes it's worth the risk of alienating the GOP's pro-business wing, which takes a dim view of strict antitrust enforcement even if it targets a company with close ties to Democrats.
Why companies should stay out of politics (Score:5, Insightful)
When your company founders are openly supporting the political opposition party, your company partnered with the old government, and your company has demonstrated your willingness to censure political thought of the user base when they go against your chosen politics, then you shouldn't be surprised that your company becomes targeted by the opposition party when your party is out of power. You made your bed, now sleep in it.
Re:Why companies should stay out of politics (Score:5, Insightful)
>"Why companies should stay out of politics"
+1 Google has been ACTIVELY "left", so why would this surprise anyone? And "left" government officials have done exactly the same type of harassment as this in the past. It is best to be neutral on political things not directly about business.
Actors, too, should keep the hell out of politics. A lot of them look pretty damn stupid going on ads telling us how to vote, or making stupid political commentaries, as if their opinions are somehow more valid, important, or enlightened than the rest of us.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Google has been ACTIVELY "left", so why would this surprise anyone? And "left" government officials have done exactly the same type of harassment as this in the past.
So many commenters here have been quick to forget discriminatory IRS practices under Obama.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean the thing that was investigated by a republican congress and didn't happen?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean the thing that was investigated by a republican congress and didn't happen?
OJ isn't a murderer. Clinton didn't perjure himself. Bill Cosby, Weinstein, and all the others never molested anyone. Etc.
Interesting that pointing out left wing bias is modded offtopic while the opposite is not. Almost as if one side is more insincere than the other these days, not unlike equating a lack of criminal conviction with the absence of action...unless it benefits your political party of course.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately the bias is prevalent from the left - but that's because the left-wing media actively encourages it and is mainstream, while the right-wing media is simply ridiculed when they do it. The difference is clear that the media on the left, that gives a free-pass to bad practices from the left is the mainstream.
What we should be doing is holding up all examples of bad practice, and criticisng it. The left-wing media should be holding the left-leaning companies and individuals to as much rigour as th
Re: (Score:2)
This state of affairs is really is nobody's best interests except the
...media. FTFY
The media gains because the tribes love to watch drama. It's the same reason you only hear "news" that is unusual, and not about the six hundred murders that happened in Detroit. They only care about selling advertising, and tribalism supports that.
Re: Why companies should stay out of politics (Score:2)
But, but, but... if you support $OTHER_TEAM you're a big jerk Nazi traitor asshole!!!1!!1!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So, sure, Google is a monopolist bully that censors speech, invades privacy, and uses shade practices to kill their competition, but they're on our side!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, the one that didn't happen so bad that Tea Party groups ended up with a $3.5M settlement.
Keep on being a dumb fuck though, it's clearly working for you.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Which of these facts are you claiming is not a fact?: "the FBI told Fox News that its investigation had found no evidence so far warranting the filing of federal criminal charges in connection with the controversy, as it had not found any evidence of "enemy hunting", and that the investigation continued. On October 23, 2015, the Justice Department declared that no criminal charges wo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bullshit.
When all that happened, my wife was the head of a group in our state. She got started with the Ron Paul campaign, before the "Tea Party" was really a thing, so she got her org's 501(c)(3) status before the IRS started targeting conservative groups.
So since that was already in place, they went after us personally instead. There were audits, bills, threats, all based on nothing. We kept filing paperwork and responses to their queries, which somehow the IRS never received. I'd mail AND fax the stuff
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So many commenters here have been quick to forget discriminatory IRS practices under Obama.
You mean the thing about IRS investigating a group that said it didn't like taxes at all? Whyever would they try cheating on tax returns?
It was a much wider program than that, there were many groups. When all that happened, my wife was the head of a group in our state. She got started with the Ron Paul campaign, before the "Tea Party" was really a thing, so she got her org's 501(c)(3) status before the IRS started targeting conservative groups.
So since that was already in place, they went after us personally instead. There were audits, bills, threats, all based on nothing. We kept filing paperwork and responses to their queries, which someho
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Agreed. If actors had stayed out of politics, we wouldn't have Reaganomics or the current shit show.
Re: (Score:2)
And Lincoln wouldn't have been shot.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Everybody should stay out of politics. Only professionals should express their opinions.
Re: (Score:2)
And what makes someone a professional in economics?
Most CEO decisions could easily be improved if handed to a Magic-8-Ball.
Re: (Score:2)
professional politicians? I doubt we'd really want a bunch of unelected self-appointed career politicians running our lives because they say they know best and have a degree in politics and gender studies to prove it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
LOL if you don't think Google is left and SJW, you're so far inside your own bubble that anyone to the right of Mao Zedong looks like a nazi to you.
"Googleâ(TM)s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety," he wrote in his TL;DR section of the memo. "This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed. The lack of discussion fosters the mos
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Shoot, this is a hard argument to make. Mainly because facts like this just don't matter in political perception. It doesn't really matter what Google does, the OPs point was that the founder's political activities position the company, and that's exactly right. The founders worked for a partisan presidential campaign, and took advantage of great access to the White House. I don't actually think there was a profit motive there. I think they did that to try to help the country, and I think they did help t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
US debt to GDP is already at over 100%
https://tradingeconomics.com/u... [tradingeconomics.com]
It's forecast to stay there
https://tradingeconomics.com/u... [tradingeconomics.com]
Now going from $19 Trillion and 100% of GDP to $51 Trillion and presumably over 200% of GDP doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
And that's from one policy. Most people think the forecast is hopelessly optimistic and if you're willing to add $32 trillion to the debt over one policy to buy votes, what's to stop you adding another one?
It's disastrous. And up until the last election
Re: (Score:2)
"Universal health care is trivially affordable".
Please, citation?
Or is this like "building a hyperloop between LA and New York is child's play".
Re: Why companies should stay out of politics (Score:2)
Time for debt repudiation? Power grows from the barrel of a gun - and fedgov has a lot more guns than the banksters.
Re: Why companies should stay out of politics (Score:2)
How's that bootleather taste?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm well when you support the left wing candidate for POTUS
I don't remember Google supporting Jill Stein.
Oh, you meant Clinton? She's centrist, not leftist. Keep trying kiddo, you'll get it never.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
She is a leftist in the American since which includes social issues. I guess Europeans have a more simplest view of left in right (bought by corp - must be right or centrist.)
Re: (Score:2)
She is a leftist in the American since which includes social issues.
Clinton decided not to support a UBI [vox.com], and she has publicly stated that single payer health care is dead in America. She has punted on the issues that liberals care about most. So no, no she is not a leftist in any "since".
I guess Europeans have a more simplest view of left in right (bought by corp - must be right or centrist.)
It's just that simple, yes. Supporting corporatism is a centrist position. And I was born in Santa Cruz, California.
Re: (Score:2)
So if a republican is pro-life and traditional marriage but agianst corps and for single payor, are they centrists?
Re: (Score:2)
So if a republican is pro-life and traditional marriage but agianst corps and for single payor, are they centrists?
Anyone who wants to tell you what you can do in your bedroom is a conservative or a fascist.
Re: Why companies should stay out of politics (Score:2)
leftist = rightist = centrist = authoritarian financialist
Re: (Score:3)
I never said Clinton was the most liberal candidate but she sure as hell isn't centrist in the US.
Yes, she absolutely is. She is as bought and paid for as any of her fellows, and she is a corporatist through and through. There are notably more leftist politicians in the media on a regular basis.
Re: Why companies should stay out of politics (Score:5, Interesting)
The biggest problem in politics is we don't have a definition of "right" that makes any sense.
Ayn Rand and Adolf Htler cannot both be "right-wing". They are mutually exclusive.
Re: (Score:2)
We have a definition of "Right Wing" that makes sense - anything that disagrees with the Left Wing in any particular.
***looks at definition provided***. Yep, Hitler and Ayn Rand are both Right Wing....
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Rand was simply a moron - her 'objectivism' isn't 'rightwing', it's just a stupid attempt to justify greed and selfishness. The 'collectivism' that the Randians decry is what the rest of us call 'civilization'. If all the Randians were rounded up and put on Madagascar to fend for themselves, they'd all die because to them, cooperation is anathema.
Yes, Hitler was 'right wing'. Most authoritarians are. No, Stalin was not a leftist. Neither was Castro. They were both authoritarians too.
If you want to se
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever you may think of Ayn Rand her philosophy promoting the rights of individuals and freedom of association is antithetical with H!tlers.
Re: (Score:2)
She admired the constitution and the ideals as embodied in the US Constitution. Washington, Madison, Jefferson couldn't cooperate? Really?
You want to disagree with her? Fine. Disagree all you want. But making things up doesn't help you make your case.
Re: (Score:3)
So essentially, your definition is : Authoritarian and/or greedy=right, stuff I like=left.
I hate to break it to you, but the extreme right and the extreme left are like the far side of a donut--they're barely indistinguishable from each other in how they achieve their goals. Your argument is sort of like sayinig "Well, he was (my group), until he did (bad thing), then he wasn't. Because my group doesn't do (bad thing).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yup. And actually the recent kerfuffle with Keurig shows the same thing.
Media Matters called up Keurig and convinced them to pull advertising from Hannity because he was, according to Media Matters 'pro child molestor'. None of which was true of course.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/... [dailywire.com]
So Keurig pulled their ads. Of course at that point the right started a 'boycott Keurig' campaign, with videos of people smashing their Keurig machines. Though as Ben Shapiro pointed out - smashing a machine you already own do
Re: (Score:2)
> Now in the long run this means that companies will either be Democrat companies or Republican ones. Up to now that hasn't happened.
Oh really? What planet have you been living on for the past 40 years?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/10/09/ceo-says-hell-fire-employees-if-obamas-reelected/#2301dd3259c0
http://www.businesspundit.com/20-companies-that-you-probably-didnt-know-were-republican/
Re: (Score:2)
You have to be careful when you read these things. Companies like mine donate to any candidate (often on both sides) based upon their voting record in regards to how it helps the company. A single donation could be perceived as supporting one side, or spun that way.
Re: (Score:2)
California Pizza Kitchen brings in the most liberals, with a score of 146 on the lefty index. O'Charley's-a chain located throughout the South and Midwest-and Cracker Barrel have the most conservative clientele, scoring 121 and 118, respectively, on the righty index.
I think anything with "California" would be far left by default...and then there's "Cracker"-anything on the right.
Re: (Score:2)
How much does Missouri cost on Amazon . . . ? Probably a lot less than a McMansion in the Silicon Valley. Google should just buy them. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Democrats haven't been able to buy people since Republicans passed the 13th Amendment
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Though arguably the H1B visa allow companies to have indentured servants. I'm surprised the Democrats haven't suggested illegals getting three fifths of vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In general, that's a good idea. But, you often end up making compromises that appear, and negotiations and deals end up leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouth. That gets people looking for revenge, and then you have what we have now...tribalism, and a feeding frenzy by the media for more because it brings in more revenue. If we can't learn to view those on the other side as something other than "libtards" or "teabaggers", then I have little hope that we'll recover from this without blood spilling eventu
Just throw some cash at them (Score:2)
I'm gonna guess the Republicans are prepping to find replacements for all those wealthy donors who are threatening to abandon them if they don't get their tax breaks. Just threaten some corporations until they drop some free speech dollars into the right Super-PACs.
Federal (Score:2)
But just guessing, I'm no la
Re: (Score:2)
When it's specifically about interstate commerce - an enumerated federal jurisdiction.
Nexus? (Score:2)
Does Google have a nexus in Missouri? If not, what legal issue can proceed? If Google were incorporated in Antarctica, could anyone sue them? Just asking for the sake of legal jurisdiction.
Looking back, does anyone (!) want to go back to Altavista searches? Or Inktomi? Or that other search engine that got big bucks from mesothemioma and bulk email ads per click? I must have cost them a lot from my clicks :)
Re: (Score:2)
Define "operate in." That's a tricky one with the interwebs. It may well be that Google has zero physical presence in Missouri, zero legal presence in Missouri, zero financial presence in Missouri.. and yet 90% of Missouri likely uses Google because 90% of everybody does (I mean I don't know what Google happens to have in Missouri.. I'm just saying that it doesn't matter whether they do or not -- Missourites will still be using Google.)
The internet has no natural borders. It was specifically designed tha
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to see Google take their ball and go home too. But as much of a monopoly as they are, they don't quite have a total lockdown on search. And, competition is a good thing.
Google has more than this Missouri AG (Score:2)
Regulations (Score:5, Insightful)
So, basically, reducing regulations only matter when it affects large Republican donors?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So, basically, reducing regulations only matter when it affects large Republican donors?
Yes. More generally, one's legislative agenda serves only those who have contributed to one's election and future re-elections [princeton.edu].
This also works in the reverse order, those who do not donate receive lots of regulatory attention. Remember pre-1996 Microsoft saying they didn't see a need to lobby? Well, after Janet Reno finished with them, they do not do that anymore [opensecrets.org].
Re: (Score:2)
No, it only matters when it benefits large Republican donors.
The Republicans are pretty happy to regulate the hell out of your bedroom, your womb (should you have one,) your faith and anything else they happen to dislike. The whole "small government" and "deregulation" catch phrases are just that -- catch phrases. Republicans want just as much government as Democrats.. they just want it focused in a different direction.
Just so we're clear... (Score:2, Interesting)
They don't have a proble
Re: Just so we're clear... (Score:2, Informative)
If the women were underage, he could run for senate in Alabama.
The difference between Dems and Repubs is Dems condemn their criminals, Repubs call it fake news.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think in Takei's case there's good reason to disregard the accusation unless and until it goes to and through court.
So far as I'm aware, it's a single accusation from long ago that is uncorroborated. You look at the other major cases flying around, and there's tons of people crawling out of the woodwork saying, "We all knew but were afraid to do anything".
Takei hasn't had that kind of power... well, ever, as far as I know, and even with it being the 'in' thing to denounce right now, I don't see a lynch m
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. However, it's still perfectly rational to feel fairly comfortable around Takei and not want to be anywhere near Weinstein right now.
One unverified accusation vs. dozens of corroborated accounts makes a difference, even before a courtroom. And Weinstein also made a limited admission of guilt when this all started.
Legal presumption of innocence is distinct from practical presumption of innocence.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Child molesting is a left-wing thing.
So Roy Moore has secretly been a left-winger all his life? Trump? But the real difference is that the left-wing public is totally willing to throw all of those people under the bus, but the right-wing public is all too ready to make excuses for child molesters. Roy Moore has got over fifty churches making apologies for him, which makes sense given that there are whole books of the Christian bible which are literally nothing but apologia for older books in which God and his followers act like fuckheads const
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Google is a monopolist in advertising (Score:5, Informative)
Google is how ever a monopolist in advertising. If I want to buy advertising on the internet I go to Google. They make it easy, they give me amazing tools and they can sell me placement everywhere. No other advertiser on the non-facebook internet is even relevant. On the flip side if you want to sell advertising space on your website, unless you want to have a real sales team, you have no choice but to sell to Google. The barrier to entry in online advertising is massive. Search, email, maps, documents, etc., those are just added lines of defense to protect adwords.
Re: (Score:3)
No monopoly in search? Really? Google has something like 80% market share globally - that looks like a monopoly to me [source: https://www.netmarketshare.com... [netmarketshare.com]
there is almost no barrier to creating a new search engine
Yep, no barrier, except maybe millions of dollars and years of development work, oh and millions more in servers to actually crawl the Internet. Oh, and then somehow you've got to prize people away from their default browsers, 'mind share', phones and whatever else. Seems like small-potatoes to me too.
Google is completely up front about what they do with the data people freely give them.
Well, I'd disagree because people aren't aware o
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'd disagree because people aren't aware of what they're giving google, and aren't aware of the ways it gets used either. "We use it to target ads at you" really doesn't do justice to the amount of data they scoop up and how much 'mining' they do on your data and how they use that data to influence you in various ways.
Cite?
Note that I'm not arguing with you, just asking for details and sources. I see claims like yours a lot, but no one ever seems to be able to explain in detail what other stuff Google does, or how they know about what other stuff Google does.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'd disagree because people aren't aware of what they're giving google, and aren't aware of the ways it gets used either.
Cite?
Are you saying there is a remote possibility that
1. people are aware of what they're giving google, and
2. people are aware of the ways it gets used ?
Note that aware better mean "really sure, with evidence" rather than a hunch based on weasel words in Google's privacy policy.
but no one ever seems to be able to explain in detail what other stuff Google does, or how they know about what other stuff Google does.
Convenient when the "stuff Google does" is hidden behind closed doors on Google's servers. So even experts outside Google don't have access who could have analyzed it in some years, let alone "people".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If there actually is evidence to support such assertions
Which are the ways by which Google allows collecting such "evidence" ?
Re: (Score:2)
If there actually is evidence to support such assertions
Which are the ways by which Google allows collecting such "evidence" ?
Irrelevant. Asserting the existence of evidence you can't collect doesn't make sense. Asserting the possibility that such evidence may exist does make sense, but that's not what I constantly see slashdotters doing.
Re: (Score:2)
I am a slashdotter. It is not enough to not have proof that people's data is abused - it is necessary to have proof that people's data is not abused.
Re: (Score:2)
based on weasel words in Google's privacy policy.
Oh, one more point.
Try this sometime as an exercise. Take a privacy policy with "weasel words" in it, and try to rewrite it without them (assuming that the company actually doesn't want or intend to behave badly). Be absolutely sure that the resulting text cannot possibly be construed to imply that the company is not doing anything that it actually is (e.g. that your company isn't using user data to provide the services that the user wants provided), because the legal liability inherent in making claims t
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why anything other than server access and data access, without being NDA'ed so that experts can be consulted, is merely "weasel words".
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why anything other than server access and data access, without being NDA'ed so that experts can be consulted, is merely "weasel words".
FWIW, the FTC has such access, pursuant to the Google Buzz consent decree, and regularly audits Google's compliance with the terms of the decree.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha, government is precisely the entity in whose hands Google's data is most dangerous. Government agencies disarming themselves/each other is quite a stupid expectation.
Re: (Score:2)
One thing to note: There's nothing wrong with or anything illegal about having a monopoly. What's illegal is when you try to use your monopoly power to either unfairly bully potential competitors (for example, but selling lower than cost because you can afford to do that and they can't) or when you try to use your monopoly power in one industry to unfairly advantage yourself in another industry (as Microsoft was sued for back in 1998 when they used their Windows platform dominance to force Internet Explor
Re: (Score:2)
"Even for companies that have the resources". But do they? You have to consider that massive mega-wealthy companies like Google can buy up a massive chunk of the best talent in the world, as well as buy out companies with a flick of their pens.
Look at college hiring for instance. The best of the best students are often pulled into these companies early on through internships, and then locked in once they graduate. Through non-compete contracts, once a person is in these companies, it's not so cut and dr
Re: (Score:2)
This is all kind of beside the point.
1) Microsoft is currently Google's biggest competitor in the search space (albeit very very far behind.) But its not like MS is exactly lacking in talent or resources.
2) Google themselves did exactly what you're talking about -- a couple guys in a garage with a good idea ended up taking down Altavista, Webcrawler, Yahoo!, and all of the other search engines at the time. If you had made this exact same claim about Altavista in 1999, everyone would have thought you were
Hmmm (Score:2)
Yes, well I would have thought being probed by Missouri republicans wouldnt be nice, those good ol' boys are always the sick ones.
Manipulation of available information (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not just "grassroots conservatives" that are worried about this. Re: the Demore memo, but also the fact Google was contributing to the Clinton campaign, and of course the "american scientist" search results. I'll grand that search result could be an organic result... but the fact we've had multiple engineers stating it's common practice to feed the engine specific data to "help" it find the right data does make me pretty suspicious. You can't deny most people use Google services, so if what they see come up on those services is manipulated for political gain, directly or indirectly, that's a pretty scary thing - especially when you consider there seems to be a large push for a non-meritocratic/anti-technocratic culture within the current ranks of Google employees.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is company, and they can do whatever the hell they want with their search results...oh wait, I'm sorry. I forgot who was in power now. A bunch of fucking hypocrites who decry regulation except for when it becomes damaging to their case. Let me rephrase this:
Google is a company, and they can do whatever the hell they want with their search results in order to support the neo-fascist extreme-right/alt-right agenda or we'll send in the jack-booted thugs to silence them.
Here's a tip: Google isn't the onl
Re: (Score:2)
My issue is with illiberal practices, restrictions on freedom of speech and/or expression, and anti-meritocratic/anti-technocratic systems. Filtering information is an authoritarian practice - and one the Nazi's made ample use of. If the current government is trying prevent companies from censoring information on the grounds the company doesn't agree with, therefore fostering real freedom of speech and expression which is the foundation for a liberal society, then I don't care what government it is I'll sup
Don't be a hypocrite. (Score:2)
Reminder: If your a person who thinks "Companies should stay out of politics" and are not actively supporting folks like Bernie Sanders (Or one of the right wing equivilents who are against corporate donations to parties, assuming such a uniicorn exists) who are directly campaigning for banning corpoorate donations and lobbying, you are a hypocrite.
No ifs , no buts, hypocrite.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it not possible to choose another candidate because "they do way more for me that Bernie Sanders, except they don't want to stop corporate political donations" without being a hypocrite? Is it not possible to have some sort of 'grey area'? Maybe some 'degrees of support'?
In American politics, there is an enduring culture of "you're with us, or against us" - where it's not possible to support a candidate "a bit more" than another. Nope, you've got to love and cherish your chosen candidate 100%, forsaking
Re: (Score:2)
Irony (Score:3)
Threats for Funds (Score:2)
I see this as a political strategy.
1. Comment on how Business X is screwing the little guy, and state that legislation is needed.
2. Open the door to the lobbyists
3. Profit.
You don't need to actually go through with #1. The threat along brings it home.
Re:Why exactly does Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously though, what is the googs doing that would make them seem like suspicious to conservatives?
They donate lots of money to Democrats.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No. They have an ever widening ring of censorship that is targeting conservative voices on Youtube. Additionally, it is now known that they have a toxic leftist monoculture that is hostile to conservative workers in their work force that became apparent with the firing of James Damore. Who dared ot ask reasonable questions but felt the full rage of the toxic left because it impinged on their every widening ideology of identity politics that is essentially cult-like now.
Re: Why exactly does Google (Score:4, Insightful)
I didn't look closely, but my understanding was that Damore was quite liberal, just apparently not the kosher type liberal.
Re: (Score:2)
Damore said, if you read with some clarity and intelligence, that the patriarchy has, at a fundamental level, influenced and controlled the structure of jobs in the tech sector. His position is that because of male domination in that industry the parts of the job that are not related to the actual work of being a software engineer are more easily tolerated by those with Y chromosomes.
Long hours, little time off, working weekends, high stress, and recognition based on being noisy and self promoting are all
Re:Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
All of them, by any reasonable political compass.
Re: (Score:2)
Not by US standards. People need to get off of this soapbox. And sure, both sides take individual policies to the opposite spectrum. And yes, we all know that most all American politics is on the right. But, you can't apply the global left/right to the politics of the US...it's not relevant to the discussion because when Americans talk about left/right, it's only relative to the U.S. range of positions, and the Ds are left of the Rs. You'd have to come up with another phrase ridiculous phrase to distin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
James Woods is about the only conservative actor and he even admitted it hurt his career.
Re: (Score:2)
How's Tim Allen doing these days?
Re: (Score:2)
Arnie is probably one of the most liberal republicans in the public eye.
Re: (Score:3)
Now it's all political and how anyone not fully left of center is evil.
I'm sorry, I must have missed it for all the right-wing FYGM shit that I have to wade through to read any actually intelligent comments.