
Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership - EleventhSun
https://publicpolicy.googleblog.com/2016/06/the-trans-pacific-partnership-step.html
======
davb
This endorsement surprises me just because the TPP is so blatantly anti-
consumer, pro-corporation.

I'm under no illusion that Google's anything other massive tech-savvy
advertising company, but the self-serving corporate side of the company is
usually hidden behind the pretty veneer of "tech for the people". Supporting a
trade agreement like the TPP (especially given the lack of transparency in the
process) lacks their usual subtlety.

~~~
forrestthewoods
Is it anti-consumer?

Convince me. I'm open. But I also want you to include counter-arguments. I
want to hear both sides to reach a conclusion.

So far most anti-TPP arguments I've read are high on rhetoric and low on
substance.

~~~
_delirium
One specific part I don't like is that it would require signatories to enforce
a DMCA-like ban on circumvention of DRM mechanisms. The US already has such a
ban, but putting it in a treaty makes it worse (harder to repeal), and it
would create one in countries which don't already have one. In general the
intellectual-property related provisions seem not good to me, almost
exclusively in the direction of more restrictions on what regular people can
do with their data and devices.

~~~
pzone
There's essentially no enforcement of copyright law in many of the signatory
states. Yes DRM kind of sucks, but rampant piracy also kind of sucks. The way
the US does it I think is closer to optimal than the way Vietnam does it.
That's why Google calls the provisions "balanced copyright enforcement."

~~~
serge2k
> The way the US does it I think is closer to optimal than the way Vietnam
> does it

Specifically with regard to DRM I'd say they are just as ineffective, but more
consumer hostile.

------
ocdtrekkie
Wow. Even as the resident Google critic, I never expected Google would sink
down to the level of endorsing the TPP. :/

This is a clear break from the EFF's position
([https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp](https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp)) and a
strong indication of their increasing closed door ties with the Obama
administration.

~~~
tzs
Or it could be an indication that Google is considering a bigger picture than
the EFF is. TPP is a comprehensive agreement, covering a wide range of topics
and activities. Here are the titles of the major components:

    
    
        Competition & Business Facilitation
        Competition Policy
        Cooperating & Capacity Building
        Cross Border Trade in Services
        Customs Administration & Trade Facilitation
        Development
        Dispute Settlement
        Electronic Commerce
        Environment
        Financial Services
        Government Procurement
        Intellectual Property
        Investment
        Labour
        National Treatment & Market Access for Goods
        Regulatory Coherence
        Rules of Origin and Origin Procedures
        Sanitary & Phytosanitary Measures
        Small & Medium-sized Businesses
        State-Owned Enterprises
        Technical Barriers to Trade
        Telecommunications
        Temporary Entry for Business Persons
        Textiles & Apparel
        Trade Remedies
        Transparency & Anti-Corruption
    

The EFF's opposition seems to be almost all based on just one of those
components (Intellectual Property). It is quite possible that others,
including Google, could see enough positives in the other components to
outweigh the negatives the EFF sees in the IP component even if they agree
with the EFF that those IP provisions are serious negatives.

This is especially true when you consider that much of the EFF's criticism of
the IP section is over provisions that are already in effect in the US, and to
a lesser extent in Europe. For instance, the US and Europe already have the 70
year copyright term, and the US and Europe already have anti-circumvention
measures (DMCA in the US, the Copyright Directive [1] in the EU). Basically,
many of the things the EFF objects to ALREADY APPLY to Google in most of
Google's markets.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Directive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Directive)

~~~
nitrogen
_This is especially true when you consider that much of the EFF 's criticism
of the IP section is over provisions that are already in effect in the US..._

A core purpose of the EFF is to keep IP law from spinning out of control, and
to roll back the places where it already has (which is pretty much
everywhere). This would be more nearly impossible than it already is if the US
laws calcify into treaty form, which is a very good reason for them to oppose
the TPP.

~~~
yuhong
I doubt it is even in Google's business interests to do this either.

------
notthegov
If these benefits are legitimate, why can't they focus on 5 or 10 specific
objectives, and write them in some concise form like the Bill of Rights? Why
does it need to be 2,000 pages and full of complex, obsfucated concepts and
details?

Is the only way for progress to happen?

And even if the TPP is completely beneficial, it is still part of the
philosophy of economic integration. Which at its heart is promoting the
centralization of power and the diminishment of classical liberalism.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_integration#Stages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_integration#Stages)

~~~
MichaelGG
I don't really know, but I'm guessing it's a comprehensive deal. With tons of
players with their own goals. So there's probably plenty of stuff like "your
eggs aren't round enough to be labelled like that, but we'll allow them if we
can call our meat like this". And "we don't like your copyright law, but in
exchange for ... we'll allow it". Layer on exceptions and whatever else and
the page count goes up real quick.

Even selling a company for just 8-figures is more than 5-10 pages and these
deals far eclipse that amount and probably directly involve hundreds of people
if not thousands.

~~~
typon
I would be okay with minutia or details like these, making it a highly complex
trade agreement. What i can never swallow is the secrecy. If it really is a
good trade deal, why not make it transparent? They should be publishing it
online, searchable and indexable with consice summaries for every section.
This deal will literally affect billions of people, the people have a right to
know.

~~~
MichaelGG
The reasoning provided is that negotiators can't do their jobs well if every
single thing they ask for is publicized then politicized. Unfortunately this
ends up with a treaty that no one wants to renegotiate, a take-it-or-leave-it
deal with a bunch of sunk costs.

~~~
vidarh
There is a lot of middle ground between keeping something secret until there's
something take-it-or-leave-it vs. publishing every "what if we do X, will you
then let us do Y" back and forth. If more intermediate work products are unfit
for public eyes, perhaps they shouldn't be going there in the first place.

~~~
MichaelGG
OK but what would they publish? General ideas? The details being published
would only lead to a mess as each company could advertise and make a fuss over
things. Or other countries might do the same to shift things in their favor.
The end goal for each country is to do things to benefit themselves, even if
it means making hard decisions.

It's not like spy exchange negotiations or all other sorts of diplomatic
processes are public. And it's not that things are unfit for the public per
se, just that publishing each move isn't beneficial.

Yikes I never thought I'd be defending TPP-like processes. Personally I think
we're (the world) not yet ready for this level of globalisation,
unfortunately.

~~~
vidarh
Spy exhanges and most diplomatic processes rarely gets enshrined in law. At
least not without the resulting law being written in a far more open process
afterwards (e.g. consider changes after the Troubles in Northern Ireland - the
negotiations certainly didn't happen in the limelight, but the subsequent
legal changes in the UK did happen in the open).

Whether or not "publishing each move" is beneficial depends on what "each
move" is. I agree that at the most fine grained level, you don't want everyone
to find out how far you were willing to go in conversations with one opposing
negotiator, in case you need to negotiate similar clauses with someone else,
for example.

But once you have agreed that you're giving X in return for Y, publishing that
should not do much harm unless giving X is controversial. In which case the
"harm" might be exactly what ought to happen.

Here's another example, which is more relevant:

During Norways EEA negotiations with the EU, the Norwegian press reported
details pretty much daily. I just checked the archive of one of Norways
largest papers to confirm my memory, and from '90 to '92, EEA was mentioned
about 5000 times, and included things like government ministers informing the
press about likely contents of Norwegian negotiation positions that had not
yet been presented to the EU (but where the overall lines of the EU position
was known - in one case I looked at, the minister confirmed that the Norwegian
position would overall come close to what the EU had asked for in terms of
regulation of granting operating licenses for EU companies in certain areas).

They certainly did not get access to everything, but they got regular
briefings, and it contributed to ensuring the debate over whether or not to
join the EEA shaped the negotiations, as the sitting, pro-EEA government got
very clear signals about which concessions would cause the biggest problems
with the opposition and/or cost them voters.

------
lucb1e
> prohibits [participating countries] from requiring local storage of data

> It prohibits discrimination against foreign Internet services

As a Dutchman I can see why Google likes this.

~~~
JoshTriplett
Of the very many _terrible_ things in these trade treaties (most notably the
massive expansions of copyright and patents), this is one of the few that
seems helpful. It's a step towards not having to care (as much) about national
borders on the Internet. A company providing a service accessible to the
entire Internet should not have to worry about jurisdictions other than their
own.

~~~
josho
To offer an alternative viewpoint.

In Canada we have laws that protect personal health data. For instance my
doctor cannot save my patient data outside of the country. This is a major
pain for SAAS vendors, and I understand google's position. However, as a
patient I appreciate knowing that my personal health data is not being sent
around the world to other jurisdictions that may not have the same privacy and
data protection laws that we do here.

So, I have to wonder do we have a problem of countries requiring local storage
for reasons that are questionable? Or is this simply a preemptive strike
ensuring companies like google continue their easy access to global markets?
Given my example above I suggest its the latter.

~~~
_delirium
I agree with this as an American as well. Obviously worries about the NSA
getting your data are moot if the data was American to begin with, but there
are a lot of other concerns, too. I wouldn't feel comfortable with my medical
data being stored just anywhere, and I think it's entirely reasonable that the
U.S. government should be able to put some restrictions on where it's stored.

It may be possible to come up with a list of reasonably similar and friendly
countries where such restrictions are dropped, because they agree to similar
protections, and form a kind of common data-storage zone. For example, I am
probably okay with reputable Canadian or German companies being contracted to
store sensitive data. We could have a treaty formalizing what that zone is and
what common protections will be applied. But the TPP is not by any reasonable
stretch of the imagination that zone. The TPP includes countries where being
homosexual is a serious crime, for example. Is it really wise for the U.S.
government to agree to be bound by treaty not to take measures to keep its
citizens' medical data, student records, employment records, etc. out of those
countries' hands?

~~~
pzone
That's the price of freedom: putting individuals in control of their data
means they have responsibility to protect it. But is that such a bad trade-
off?

Let me put it another way. _Someone_ has to decide where it's safe to send and
store private data. Right now, in many cases, it's the government. Why do we
think that the government is properly equipped to make that decision for us?
Make sure you don't give your medical records to any shady companies.
Corporations with international operations and teams of lawyers are probably
better equipped to determine where data can be safely secured than some random
regulator.

~~~
_delirium
How do you propose that I personally reach agreements with corporations on
storage of my medical records? I've visited a hospital once in my life, which
involved doing business with dozens of different "businesses", from the
hospital to the anesthesiologist, all of whom collected records, and none of
whom I was in a condition to negotiate with on an individual basis (nor would
they have been interested in negotiating with me regarding their data-
protection policies anyway). And I don't have any faith in corporations
determining where data can be safely stored; I think they will primarily go
with where it can be most profitably stored, which is not necessarily the same
question. I would feel much more comfortable if the hospital,
anesthesiologist, and everyone else were required to store my data in
accordance with a regulator's oversight. And preferably in the USA or a
friendly western country. The companies can of course exercise _additional_
caution if they feel it warranted, but I'd like the government to legislate
some minimums.

------
typon
Its always funny when people naively forget that Google, Apple, etc. are
megacorps, not some startup ventures. They are the man. This endorsement
doesn't surprise me one bit.

~~~
dcgudeman
Is this a satirical comment or are you actually using the word "megacorps"
seriously? Just because a company is big doesn't mean it is nefarious. You
should explain why these companies are evil and how them endorsing TPP is a
bad thing.

~~~
PeCaN
I take "megacorps" to mean large, established companies with strong political
connections. Companies that exert influence both over people's lives and
governments; not necessarily malicious.

~~~
typon
Precisely. Case in point: Google's various attempts at tax avoidance in
Europe. I respect them for trying it, I'm sure every other established
corporation is doing the same thing, or trying to at least.

------
grownseed
The announcement starts by patronizing the reader ("most of us imagine
container ships ..."), then proceeds to use a "for the children"-type argument
("small business"), directly followed by "for freedom!" argument with little
to no substance.

    
    
      Trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are beginning to recognize the Internet’s transformative impact on trade.
    

Sure, in the sense that the TPP is designed by and for corporations, like
Google, who don't want stuff like, say, the EU, getting in their way when
trying to defend the users' rights (e.g. right to be forgotten). The paranoid
in me also thinks this is in fact an agreement between organizations like
Google and the US government to "legally" syphon foreign data directly from US
soil, but there is of course absolutely not enough transparency to
substantiate this either way.

I clearly don't support TPP in the first place, but I find this announcement
from Google borderline insulting, TPP or not. The condescending tone alone
makes me cringe, but the whole "we're fighting for freedom" cover story is
just disgusting.

------
jkeler
I would better trust EFF on this:
[https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp](https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp)

~~~
fattire
Everyone links to that general page, but I'd think the EFF analysis on how it
affects digital rights specifically might be even more persuasive for this
crowd:

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/12/how-tpp-will-affect-
yo...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/12/how-tpp-will-affect-you-and-your-
digital-rights)

------
lumberjack
>The TPP advances other important Internet policy goals. It prohibits
discrimination against foreign Internet services

This is really it, I think. Makes sense. They don't want another China to
happen to them.

------
syoc
I see that the point about countries not being allowed to require local
storage because

>These provisions will support the Internet’s open architecture and make it
more difficult for TPP countries to block Internet sites -- so that users have
access to a web that is global, not just local.

I do however believe that there is a aspect that has been overlooked here.
Many cooperations, private and governmentally controlled, handle sensitive
data. Having a SLA with Microsoft, Amazon or Google that states that this
highly sensitive data is _ONLY_ to be stored in specific data centers is the
only way for a lot of non flexible IT departments to regain some control over
their data. This is a widely popular demand. I can only see this as the "X
eyes" with USA in charge removing one more hurdle in their way to total
information control.

~~~
fraserharris
TPP binds governments from requiring local data storage, not private
contracts.

~~~
syoc
Thank you for clarifying. The argumentation still stands though.

~~~
jonknee
Not really, there's a big difference between state enforced rules about where
data can be and client requested rules.

~~~
tremon
Except that in a functioning democracy, state-enforced rules are client
requests from an entire population.

~~~
jonknee
It's nice to have the freedom to store your data where you'd like.

~~~
tremon
It's nice to know my business relations store my data where I'd like them to.

~~~
patrickaljord
Well then pick business relations that do so, that's what private contracts
are for.

------
habosa
In another discussion about the TPP I was pointed to this link:
[http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/](http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/)

I thought it was a very enjoyable way to learn about the agreement and why one
might oppose it.

------
bla2
Disappointing. The were a loud voice against SOPA/PIPA. All it takes for them
to do an about-face is a bill that includes a few bits about protecting
multinational internet companies.

------
golergka
It's sad to see that most of the commenters here decided to discuss it as a
news tweet ("Google endorses TPP which, as we know, is terrible") instead of a
text that makes some points on the matter. Seems like most don't even address
the text in any way — which means people don't stop for a second to doubt
their opinion on TPP, or even discuss arguments of the "enemy camp".

------
TazeTSchnitzel
Of course they do. They were probably involved in drafting it.

~~~
nullnilvoid
Julian Assange and Edward Snowden second that. The extent Google is tied to
Obama administration is astonishing.

~~~
narrowrail
I am sorry, but hours-old accts commenting on highly controversial threads,
spouting poorly cited 'almost conspiracies' doesn't seem helpful. I may be
completely off, but that is how I feel; this is something that has become far
too common on HN. Am I in my own world on this?

~~~
nullnilvoid
Judging other people by the age of their accts instead of their reasoning, you
are in your own perfect world. Here is a simple example which shows how
liberal Google is (there are plenty of them):
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFxFRqNmXKg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFxFRqNmXKg)

------
superobserver
This comes across to me as nothing more than proof that Google is doubling
down on HRC being elected now.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
I'm sure they are, and Google's definitely worked closely with Hillary before.
Though at last public claim, even Hillary said she was against the TPP.

~~~
superobserver
She said so after she said she supported it. It will be a matter of time until
she "evolves" on that matter again. Mark my words, if she's elected.

~~~
dragonwriter
> She said so after she said she supported it.

She said she supported it while it was being negotiated, and later (as a
candidate, when the final text was available) said she opposed the final form,
and that it no longer had the specific features she expected the final form
would have when she supported it.

~~~
superobserver
We can debate the "he said she said" until the cows come home. It is no
mystery that HRC supports and champions oligarchic policies. The TPP is being
pushed by the Obama administration who have added their support to her
presumptive nomination. There's no fooling anyone here about what may very
well happen.

The timing of this is peculiar, but if it has nothing to do with HRC, we'll
simply have to wait and see if that is the case.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The timing of this is peculiar, but if it has nothing to do with HRC

If it had to do with HRC, they could wait; if anything connected to the
election, it has to do with their actual support for TPP and concern that no
successor to Obama will approve it, so their best chance is for it to get
passed and signed this year (given the statements already made by Republican
leaders that that isn't going to happen _before_ the general election,
probably in the lame duck session after the election.)

~~~
superobserver
>If it had to do with HRC, they _could_ wait (Emphasis mine.)

But they won't, because they're _doubling down_.

------
urmish
What are some alternatives to google search. I think I can get away from the
rest of their products in the coming few months.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
DuckDuckGo is pretty fantastic all around.

Bing is alright, to be honest (some of their data widgets are more
comprehensive than Google's), but you will find times with Bing that you are
sad with the results.

~~~
urmish
DuckDuckGo it is then. Bing is still Microsoft's product, so thats a bummer.

~~~
cpeterso
DuckDuckGo's killer feature is its thousands of !bang search shortcuts. They
integrate with content sites' own search forms, so the results are similar to
but often better than Google's site:example.com searches because the sites'
have more domain knowledge over their content.

[https://duckduckgo.com/bang](https://duckduckgo.com/bang)

------
Esau
Disappointing. But that's Google these days.

------
sremani
I support TPP for geopolitical reasons, I am sure the Elites in the corridors
of Power in Google do it for "access" and ability to sue the shit out of the
gubmints that come in their way.

~~~
cwkoss
What are your geopolitical reasons?

~~~
sremani
I concur with Ian Bremmer's view on TPP.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jniOW9G9TQA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jniOW9G9TQA)

At a fundamental level, US defining and guiding the world economic order as it
has done with Bretton woods.

~~~
darklajid
I couldn't listen to that video for long, it wasn't quite bearable. Stopped
after 2 minutes.

Can you explain it from your point of view? These first 2 minutes repeated
'strong United States' about five times already or so. Is that what you
consider 'geopolitical reasons'?

~~~
sanderjd
This comment seems very holier-than-thou to me. Did you intend it that way? If
not, it still seems a bit inconsiderate to ask someone to summarize a video a
mere _8 minutes_ in length, which they were kind enough to link.

------
jonli1
Unlike most of the corporations in America, at least Google is transparent
about its decisions.

------
thomasdullien
Given the intense regulatory pressure (especially in the EU) that Google is
finding itself under, this is unsurprising. The TPP would greatly help in
easing 3 strategic concerns, which are:

1) Data protection regulation that would severely impact Google.

Google is kinda caught in the crossfire here. The EU is upset at the US
intelligence community (Post-Snowden), and wishes to have some assurance of
protection for their citizen's communication. The USG does not see why it
should do this, and the data protection regulation is the EU's way of saying:
If we can't get you to cooperate by being friendly, we will have to pass
legislation that will hurt US companies; they can then perhaps pay lobbyists
to change your mind. So it is not really Googles fault, but they are caught in
the middle.

2) Anti-Trust considerations.

Google is extremely dominant in the European market, much more so than in the
US. See #3. The momentum for an Antitrust case in the EU is high.

3) Industrial policy considerations.

Right now, the EU does not have an "Internet powerhouse"; there simply are no
modern Internet giants in the EU. Interestingly, both China and Russia have
"inadvertently" created local giants (mostly by censorship, which has had the
strange side-effect of being equivalent to import tariffs, but for Internet
services -- e.g. an accidental protectionist measure that allowed local
competition to emerge). Some voices have been heard in recent months that
advocate that the only way the EU won't get entirely left behind is industrial
policy toward creating an internet giant. This could even mean blocking US-
based giants for a while.

If TPP passes, Google will have a very powerful tool to wield against these
three concerns. It is entirely rational of them to support it.

------
Jerry2
Speaking of Google and politics, Julian Assange claims that Google has made a
deal with Hillary Clinton and is backing her [0]. That's not far-fetched
considering how intertwined Google and White House are. The Intercept has a
really detailed analysis and a chart showing how Google and WH share so many
lobbyists and executives [1]. Google wants to keep Democrats in the White
House so they can continue their influence over various decisions and FTC
(which squashed the investigation into Google's anticompetitive practices).

And just today, Google was accused of whitewashing Hillary Clinton's record
and not showing negative autocomplete terms [2].

Google's "don't be evil" mantra is just a way to inoculate themselves from
criticism. If anyone accuses them of anything unethical or evil or
inappropriate, they can always claim how they are "not doing anything evil"
because that's their policy. It becomes circular logic.

Assange has exposed Google's close ties to the State Department in the past as
well. For example, give this NY Times article a read [3]. If you want to see
how deep the rabbit hole goes, Assange also published a book about his meeting
with Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen of Google [4] and he published the complete
transcript of their meeting. He also covered how Jared Cohen, formerly a State
Department employee, was involved in regime changes around the world while at
Google.

Assange also states that in 2015 former Google CEO Eric Schmidt launched “The
Groundwork,” a startup specifically designed to get Clinton elected. [5]

Finally, Clinton's email release also confirmed that Google was involved in
helping Syrian rebels who were trying to bring down the Syrian regime [6].

[0] [http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/google-
wor...](http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/google-working-
closely-with-hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-julian-
assange-34780998.html)

[1] [https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/googles-remarkably-
close...](https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/googles-remarkably-close-
relationship-with-the-obama-white-house-in-two-charts/)

[2] [http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-google-search-
vi...](http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-google-search-viceo-2016-6)

[3] [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/opinion/sunday/the-
banalit...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/opinion/sunday/the-banality-of-
googles-dont-be-evil.html)

[4] [https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-
seems/](https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/)

[5] [http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/09/julian-assange-google-
is-i...](http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/09/julian-assange-google-is-in-bed-
with-hillarys-campaign-video/)

[6] [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-
tech/new...](http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-
tech/news/google-syria-rebels-defection-hillary-clinton-emails-
wikileaks-a6946121.html)

~~~
Buge
That autocomplete thing looks innocent to me. They seem to block all
"firstname lastname liar" and "firstname lastname criminal" autocompletes.

~~~
Jerry2
Why did they block the word "indictment" but not "racist"?

~~~
Buge
Maybe they overlooked it. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets blocked in the
future.

------
mark_l_watson
Let me translate this into truthiness: even though TPP and TPIP favor
multinational corporations over the sovernty of countries and what is best for
people, Google is promoting what is best for their profits.

------
sosuke
How many Google engineers would have to strike at once to get them to change
their tune? 80%?

Things only start changing when it gets bad enough to walk away.

------
shmerl
What? So Google supports all the horrible IP provisions there?

TPP must be ditched because it's an abomination in the current form, and it's
not fixable because of "fast track".

Google should officially change from "don't be evil" to "be evil" now.

------
nashashmi
Seems like they agreed to the deal to have a bigger influence on future trade
deals. I don't think they like this deal particularly. But they are swallowing
the pill for having a say in the next one.

------
revelation
The free flow of information must be why they released this tidbit on Friday
afternoon?

If they are so proud, surely a banner on Google is appropriate. It's for a
good cause after all.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
This is how you dump a story. Everyone's on the way out the door for the
weekend. Google will publish something "amazing" on Monday morning to excite
everyone to the level that people forget Google sold them out three days
prior.

~~~
revelation
It's how you publish _bad_ news, specifically.

------
cwkoss
"Don't be evil" seems to be more of a general guideline than a rule these
days.

~~~
fixermark
Motto. Or slogan.

------
victornomad
I guess they want to pay even less taxes... Ireland is getting too expensive
perhaps?

------
anonbanker
if Trump wins, there will be no TPP, at least if he sticks to his campaign
promises. We all accidentally get a gift if he makes it to the Oval Office.

~~~
Eleopteryx
According to
[https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_the_...](https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_the_Trans-
Pacific_Partnership_trade_deal) all of the remaining candidates oppose the
TPP.

~~~
MrZongle2
_At the moment._

 _Senator_ Obama opposed quite a few things as well.

~~~
Eleopteryx
>At the moment.

Well, yes, people lie. My point was that Donald Trump wasn't a special case in
terms of his position on the TPP.

------
beedogs
"okay, be evil."

------
jkeler
First they manipulated search suggestions in favor of Hillary and now this :(

~~~
packetslave
[citation needed]

~~~
MichaelGG
Probably referring to this:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFxFRqNmXKg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFxFRqNmXKg)
Was on HN but flagged. Google replies: "Google Autocomplete does not favor any
candidate or cause. Claims to the contrary simply misunderstand how
Autocomplete works. Our Autocomplete algorithm will not show a predicted query
that is offensive or disparaging when displayed in conjunction with a person’s
name. More generally, our autocomplete predictions are produced based on a
number of factors including the popularity of search terms."

Seems like "criminal" and "indictment" are filtered out, which happens to
benefit Hillary but seems to apply to other people. I tried a indicted people
and it didn't autocomplete.

------
adultSwim
Boycott Google

