
Eric Schmidt Working Directly with Clinton Campaign - thisisdallas
This email from Shmidt recommends the Clinton campaign hire &quot;low paid permanent employees&quot;. He also states, &quot;Key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them.&quot;<p>https:&#x2F;&#x2F;wikileaks.org&#x2F;podesta-emails&#x2F;emailid&#x2F;37262#efmAC9AE0AZBAZdA3DA4n
======
jstevens2357
Imagine Bezos, Zuckerberg, Cook or Nadella sending an email like this.

This is purely about monopoly maintenance. Google has everything to lose if
Clinton appoints enforcement-oriented antitrust officials. Also relevant:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-google-is-
transf...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-google-is-transforming-
power-and-politicsgoogle-once-disdainful-of-lobbying-now-a-master-of-
washington-
influence/2014/04/12/51648b92-b4d3-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_story.html)

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-u-s-antitrust-
probe-o...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-u-s-antitrust-probe-of-
google-1426793274)

------
gragas
>"Key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all
that is known about them."

That is extremely disturbing.

~~~
jacquesm
What are the odds of there being 'a single record for a user that aggregates
all that is known about them' for Google services?

------
wh0rth
Not really surprised. Hasn't he been one of the campaigns biggest donors?

------
ericzawo
Pretty sure he alluded to something like this in The New Digital Age.

------
piotrjurkiewicz
This submission has been silently hidden from the list on HN main page
(despite it wasn't flagged!). I checked the first 6 pages and it's not visible
there.

~~~
dang
Of course users flagged it. Boring though it may be, that's usually the
explanation. The [flagged] annotation shows up when the flags cross a high
threshold. Posts without URLs also get a standard penalty.

Cherry-picking a single detail from a complex body of information does not
make for a good HN post, because it's too editorialized: the one who cherry-
picks that detail essentially determines the story for everyone else. When the
subject is political, multiply this paragraph by 10x; when it's inflammatory,
by another 10x.

This and other comments of yours use phrases like "silently hidden" which
suggest manipulation of the site for political ends, but we don't do that, and
everything that happened to this post and its follow-ups (12840284, 12844254)
was completely standard. They're just not good posts for HN, and as they get
more meta (e.g. "why was my post about why was my post flagged flagged"?),
they get worse and worse.

