
Google Is Not What It Seems - DamienSF
https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/
======
culturalzero
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.

~~~
skybrian
What did you find interesting about it? (I'll confess, I skimmed.)

~~~
ariwilson
user: culturalzero created: 1 hour ago karma: 5

~~~
58
I make new accounts here all the time, and I've been posting on HN for 7+
years.

~~~
grzm
Why do you make new accounts?

------
ap22213
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.

~~~
crawfordcomeaux
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.

------
norea-armozel
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.

~~~
norikki
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".

~~~
norea-armozel
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. ;)

------
ariwilson
Dupe:

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=assange%20google%20seems&type=...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=assange%20google%20seems&type=story&dateRange=all&prefix&page=0&sort=byPopularity#!%2Fstory%2Fsort_by_date%2F0%2Fassange%20google%20seems)

Also highly misleading :).

~~~
culturalzero
Misleading how?

~~~
ariwilson
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8502284](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8502284)

------
kafkaesq
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.

~~~
mamon
Wikileaks is exactly what it seems: the front page of GRU (Russian Military
Intelligence Agency)

~~~
kafkaesq
It's not, of course. But the irony is that it frequently acts as if it's in
the pay of some malignant entity or another.

------
zump
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.

~~~
mhermher
That's really not what the article is about. There's a whole lot more to it.

------
nojvek
Could someone please summarize this?

~~~
anindha
Google is becoming a tool for US imperialism.

"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."

~~~
socrates666
Their intentions are interesting to me. Is this a money thing? Why would
Schmidt want to use his life to do this?

------
Karlozkiller
Am I dreaming or is this old news? I get a strong feeling that I've read this
before, but I can find no date on the actual article!?

~~~
grzm
It goes back at least a couple of years, so it's likely you've seen it before.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9365520](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9365520)

------
yuhong
I don't take this at face value, but there might be clues for why Google
supports the TPP.

~~~
wahern
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.

~~~
geofft
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.

~~~
wahern
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 a decent journalist. (Yet another
reason to pay for a real newspaper subscription, or to otherwise financially
support the journalist community, if you can.)

Finally, Google isn't part of the hacker crowd. Even if they were, they're so
large that their interests could be such that even if they were trying to "not
be evil" they could still reasonably support the TPP. Nonetheless, for better
or worse they and similar companies represent the "techies" at the negotiating
table, not the EFF. And that's just the reality of the situation, whether we
like or not.

~~~
yuhong
There is also the matter of the timing of the blog post too.

------
devopsproject
This is the reason Schmidt uses an iPhone

