
Peter Thiel Gave Money to Attorney General Going After Google - SirLJ
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-15/peter-thiel-gave-money-to-attorney-general-going-after-google
======
rdtsc
Yes those who have money buy political favors in US.

[https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/07/amid-antitrust-
talk...](https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/07/amid-antitrust-talk-amazon-
and-google-flex-lobbying-muscle/)

Google has 25 lobbying firms on retainer and spends at least $15M / year on
lobbying. That is more than Verizon, Monsanto and Goldman for example, just to
pick a few traditional big and scary companies off the top of my head.

Also speaking of Google, it has a pretty wide revolving door: "22 former White
House officials moved into jobs at Google, while 31 Google executives took
government jobs". It's not necessarily more un-evil or better than Monsanto
for example, but many people still think of it as the cute little startup with
fun colorful letters in the logo.

~~~
3pt14159
Monsanto is evil for tricking farmers or for unfair business practices, not
for lobbying. This is a false equivalency. Google advocates for things that
are generally in the public interest and does not abuse those position as many
companies of their size do.

~~~
kogepathic
_> Google advocates for things that are generally in the public interest and
does not abuse those position as many companies of their size do._

Yes, they do that now.

What about in the future? There's no guarantee that they won't start lobbying
for things which entrench their monopoly and help their business while harming
consumers.

Just look at Google Fiber. At one point in time it seemed they might actually
disrupt incumbent providers like Comcast, but they figured it wasn't in their
interests and mothballed it.

~~~
Secretmapper
Source on wasn't in their interests? I've only read that they couldn't
continue it due to a: aggressive regulations by incumbers preventing entry of
new ISPs (such as Fiber), b: most companies (like Comcast) miraculously
offered fiber once Google Fiber was in the game, and c: they're focusing on
wireless/balloon solutions.

These are just what I read but I would love to hear if this was just PR and
there was a sinister reason like you imply.

~~~
rayiner
> I've only read that they couldn't continue it due to a: aggressive
> regulations by incumbers preventing entry of new ISPs (such as Fiber)

The truth is the exact opposite. Google got very favorable treatment from
fiber cities: [https://techliberation.com/2012/08/07/what-google-fiber-
says...](https://techliberation.com/2012/08/07/what-google-fiber-says-about-
tech-policy-fiber-rings-fit-deregulatory-hands). See also:
[http://crosscut.com/2014/12/google-fiber-never-come-
seattle-...](http://crosscut.com/2014/12/google-fiber-never-come-seattle-
broadband-internet-2).

The difference between Mountain View and Kansas City isn’t that that Comcast
has somehow managed to out-lobby Google in Google’s own back yard. That’s
absurd.

------
downandout
While this headline is factual, this is like saying " _Man With Pre-Existing
Health Conditions Donated to the Obama Campaign, and Now We Have Obamacare_ ".
People shop for candidates that will serve their interests and then try to
help get them elected. That is how our system of government works, and there
is nothing wrong with that.

The article strives to imply that Thiel paid this guy off to bring the action,
but provides no factual basis for such a conclusion. He apparently sought out
a candidate that shared his point of view on Google, and donated to him. It's
as simple as that. This article really is nothing more than drivel intended to
further impune the reputation of a man hated by liberals for his support of
Donald Trump. It's no coincidence that it appears in Bloomberg, which happens
to be owned by one of the most liberal people on planet earth. I can't stand
political propaganda masquerading as legitimate news - on the left or right -
but that seems to be all we are exposed to these days.

~~~
smhost
> That is how our system of government works, and there is nothing wrong with
> that.

The system you described naturally consolidates power, and most of society
finds it acceptable only if it coexists with a mechanism to redistribute some
of that power to the underprivileged class. So there are some things wrong
with it.

> a man hated by liberals for his support of Donald Trump

Liberals hate him for his conservative views, not just for his support of
Trump. As a PoC, it's hard not to feel disgust toward a powerful elite who
says shit like: "...when you start looking for racism everywhere, and you
start finding racism everywhere, it's only a very small step to finding
racists everywhere. Now, there's nothing wrong if there are really racists out
there, but I'm going to suggest to you that there really aren't." Textbook
conservative gaslighting to downplay the prevalence of an issue that they find
to be inconvenient.

~~~
natecavanaugh
> Textbook conservative gaslighting to downplay the prevalence of an issue
> that they find to be inconvenient.

I think depending on your experiences, it may come off as gaslighting, but as
a conservative (who loathes Trump and a lot of what Thiel champions), I can
tell you that even the word racist is a heavy handed social weapon that has
sometimes been used wrongly, or, and this is what triggers conservative anger,
is when it's applied only to white people. So it comes off as intellectually
dishonest in these types of discussions.

You may be thinking "oh Lord, cry me a river", but if everyone would cop to
and own up for their own failings and work on that, things might ease a bit
with regard to the tension of these discussions.

Also, you can't have diversity of experience when it's convenient, and
uniformity of experience at the same time. What I mean is, if all or most PoC
have experienced racism, why is it not ok to then label all PoC with the
negative labels and experiences?

I've known many privileged PoC who demonstrate, if not full blown racism, then
above average hostility and prejudice to not only other races, but even
subgroups in their own ethnicity.

And I have known many white people who come from an underprivileged background
who suffer from many of the same structural inequalities in the system because
of their background and who they associate with.

I would agree with him that there really aren't many racists in the world in
general, if we are defining racist as a person who consciously believes one
race is superior to another.

But if we define it as people who have subconscious prejudices that influence
their thinking of other cultures, ethnicities, races, etc., Then I would say
that they are everywhere, including you and I.

But going with the latter definition is tricky, because humans are complex in
that prejudices are overridden as often as they influence a decision. For
instance, my former doctor was a somewhat older Asian lady, and she has a
gigantic prejudice towards Russians and would say things like "Never adopt
from Russia, the babies parents have so many drinking problems. The baby will
have too many problems". However, having had her for many years, I can say
that if a Russian, baby or not were to go to her for help, she would provide
the same level of care she would give anyone else. Her prejudices may
influence her initial thinking, but these sorts of things, if people are
honest with themselves, are quickly overridden.

Again, I'm not saying there aren't racists and that there aren't institutional
issues that stem from it, I'm saying that it's frustrating that it's often
ignored when PoC exhibit the same behavior, and that it happens when the
environment is setup to favor PoC and the white person is the one at the
disadvantage.

So all that to say, I don't think it's inconvenient for conservatives or
whites to have the discussion, it's just very often overly emotional on both
sides and incredibly frustrating at times.

~~~
smhost
I would have been more willing to agree on a common ground before the Trump
era. But now it seems as if all of the racists are seeping out of the
woodwork, and I'm hearing all of the old racist arguments reinvigorated and
amplified, arguments I thought had been defeated. America, for example, is the
greatest empire ever to have existed, and the culture that gave rise to that
is predominantly white, is it not? Is not true that African Americans are more
violent and more stupid, statistically and factually speaking, than other
races in America? Isn't it a fact that Jews control Hollywood? Is it not a
true fact that LGBT people are more prone to mental disorders? Is it not true
that ethnically homogeneous states are more stable? Why can't we talk about
facts? And what is wrong, factually speaking, with any of these lines of
reasoning?

If you say that there really aren't racists, then I guess I should take your
word for it, despite what I experience with my own eyes and ears every day,
what I'll experience tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after that,
until I'm fucking dead.

> Again, I'm not saying there aren't racists and that there aren't
> institutional issues that stem from it, I'm saying that it's frustrating
> that it's often ignored when PoC exhibit the same behavior, and that it
> happens when the environment is setup to favor PoC and the white person is
> the one at the disadvantage.

So why not just say this instead of saying that there really aren't racists?
How is saying that there really aren't racists not a form of gaslighting?

~~~
natecavanaugh
On your first point, I think those same vehemently racist beliefs have been
there this whole time, only because as a white guy, those racist or just
plainly prejudiced other white guys would feel more comfortable expressing
those opinions around me until I would bring around a black ex-girlfriend or a
Latino best friend, and the conversation on that topic would get contorted
into a weird dance around the topic filled with qualified euphemisms. And this
was even during the Clinton era.

But I could watch this happen at the black barbershop next door to my parents
business when we would get haircuts, or the Mexican restaurant on the other
side when everyone switches to purely Spanish when they would see us or the
barbers walk in, but you could hear the "mayate" and "guero" get dropped into
the conversation. Mind you it was the patrons of those businesses is where you
would hear it from, and the proprietors of the businesses all genuinely
respected and enjoyed each other.

I think what's happening now is you're seeing racists feeling empowered by an
atrocious human being who used racism and economic misery to weasel himself
into power, which a lot of that rage was in reaction to Obama being in office
for 8 years. Obama used the same frothy rage of unhappiness and economic
misery to get into the White House, much in reaction to 8 years of Bush. But I
heard plenty of racist remarks in the background when Obama was elected, it
just had no power, and was in fact fomented in part by the feeling of having
no power.

The other aspect that I believe we're seeing is amplification. The Internet
and social media have so much more power than they did in 2008, both in it's
influence, and our perception of that influence. But in reality, it's the same
human dirt that has been there forever, with water added, and flung father
than ever before.

However, the quote you posted in your original comment is subtly different
than what you've said in your response to mine. The way you understood the
quote, I'm assuming, is that he was saying there aren't any racists. The way I
read your original quotation was that he was saying that there aren't racists
_everywhere_. We can split hairs on that one, and English definitely doesn't
provide any help, but I certainly don't want to dig in even a millimeter
defending Trump's or Thiel's intent.

I'll get into that in the next block, but I've seen activists on both sides
create mountains out of molehills with regard to parsing the intent of a
poorly phrased statement.

> So why not just say this instead of saying that there really aren't racists?
> How is saying that there really aren't racists not a form of gaslighting?

I guess I would say it would depend on the intended audience. If they were
trying to convince PoC that there are no white racists at all, then I would
definitely consider it gaslighting. But if they're saying no one of any
ethnicity is a racist, I would tend to treat that as a political (and more
"positive") spin of what Trump said about Charlottesville.

If their audience are whites, then I would say it's appealing to their base,
who, while all prejudiced, the majority of which are not racist, but who are
often spoken about as if they were, or should be ashamed for being a part of
racism.

And there is the possibility it's both, which is the dark side of effective
use of political speak. You can encourage "us" and try to discourage "them",
while holding onto deniability about intent.

But personally, without having read or heard Thiel's exact statements in the
interview you quoted, I don't want to guess at the intent of those specific
comments.

And I think that Trump (and culturally, his entire regime) is a natural genius
about using language to incite both sides to action or reaction, and yet he
can play all sides to his advantage.

There are reams of ways to use language to not only avoid responsibility, but
associate ideological contrary statements so that your average political base
may feel compelled to endorse it even if they add qualifications and
disclaimers around it (which are all ignored by the opposing side).

Kinda like my entire set of comments, I guess, though I am completely opposed
to them, I think nuance on both sides is needed, moreso during these times :)

------
mankash666
There's plenty of behavior from Google that smacks of anti-trust. From not
showing competitors products in search results (protonmail was the most
prominent recent case) to locking out customers heavily reliant on Google,
they've gotten rather "evil"

Having said that, I have zero confidence in politicians to make this right. If
Google is evil, politicians are the spawns of Satan. Republicans probably have
a bone to pick with Google given how left leaning googlers are. So this
immediately transforms a anti trust issue into Democrats vs Republicans

~~~
sdenton4
Republicans support big business, though, right?

(Having large successful businesses in blue states provides a well if funds
they can transfer to the red states... As we see them doing with the current
tax proposals.)

~~~
thephyber
A comment in another thread made an interesting point about this press release
done by the Missouri AG. Generally AGs don't need to send out press releases
to announce the _beginning_ of an investigation if they already have evidence
that will stick.

Google will probably end up hiring an expensive local law firm in Missouri and
spend money on marketing to Missourians to improve its image. Without the AG's
threat of a lawsuit, Google expenditures would probably largely avoid
Missouri.

If this is true, the AG is playing at something that kinda smells like a legal
form of racketeering, unless there is actually strong grounds to bring a anti-
trust case.

------
c3534l
Okay. That's not illegal and there's no evidence of bribery. My congressman
also fought for net neutrality and I also gave him money. In fact, I gave him
money _because_ I wanted him to fight for net neutrality for me.

~~~
joshAg
You gave your congressman as significant an amount of money as theil did?!

~~~
geocar
Isn't $300k like $500 to Peter Thiel?

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
Would that make it equivalent in the eyes of the recipient?

------
slowmotiony
Clearly Thiel is not important enough and has to use the old school way of
lobbying - by sending massive amounts of cash through shady lobbying groups.

If he was more important, he could simply call the president like Zuck:
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/13/mark-z...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/13/mark-
zuckerberg-obama-nsa-facebook-message)

~~~
stonewhite
A rant tangential to original submission but, articles like you linked always
push me to the edge. A supposedly tech journalist throwing around redundant
requests.

> a) Facebook Pro doesn’t track me;

> b) Facebook Pro stores zero data about me; and

> c) Facebook Pro uses encryption in every possible way.

b makes a redundant, and c is already there. Also the personalization is the
product itself, so storing "zero data" also breaks the product.

Want to see an unpersonalized timeline looks like? Go check twitter. From the
beginning, the timeline view (or whatever it is called) was unusable and most
of all: _irrelevant_.

People want to be on the Facebook because everybody is there, but for some
reason people also want to get rid of core feature how it keeps all its users
on board and active. Just don't use it if you are that bothered. (I don't)

------
liamtk43
Are we supposed to assume that by Thiel giving $300k to Hawley's political
campaign in 2015, Thiel is behind Hawley's antitrust investigation into
Google? Enough with the "click bate" titles and attenuated conclusions.
Another article from a major news outlet that contains zero facts supporting
its implied premise.

~~~
flexie
That would be a sound assumption.

Why else should a Silicon Valley billionaire give 300k to someone running for
attorney general in a Missouri? Is he just interested in justice being pursued
in a small Midwestern state he doesn't live in, that he is neither from, nor
studied in, nor has his major business interests in?

$300,000 is a sizable donation for someone running for attorney general in a
low key state.

~~~
ForHackernews
> $300,000 is a sizable donation

According to Forbes' estimates, Thiel is worth about $2.8 billion. Donating
$300,000 for him is proportional to giving maybe $30 for a normal upper-middle
class person.

~~~
flexie
The important question is what $300,000 is to the attorney general. For 99
percent of us it's more than we could hope to save up in many years.

~~~
ForHackernews
> For 99 percent of us it's more than we could hope to save up in many years.

This is true. It's also true that it's an utterly trivial amount of money to
somebody like Peter Thiel.

~~~
Jyaif
trueness != relevance

------
ratsimihah
> unveiled a probe into Alphabet Inc.’s Google for favoring its own products
> in search results

Is there something inherently wrong with that? I understand it's annoying, but
Google is a business after all, not a charity.

Not showing competing results could be considered evil, but merely favoring
their own products seems fair to me.

Then again every product I've been building never took off, so what do I know?

------
tzury
This headline has not been phrased with honesty nor dignity.

Donated to a Campaign vs Gave Money to a person.

Donated to a campaign in Jan. Google suite filed mid November.

------
martin_bech
Nice to see billionaires doing good with their money.

~~~
katastic
Bro managed to remove Gawker from the internet. It's already a better place.

Strange how people are demanding Twitter, Facebook, YouTube et al "clean up
their content" but when someone does it with a lawsuit, all a sudden these
toxin spewing organizations are supposed to be the "underdogs"?

What's that? Oh, the world's smallest tear.

------
tomohawk
Soros is way scarier the way he is buying up district attorneys.

[http://freebeacon.com/politics/george-soros-continues-
quietl...](http://freebeacon.com/politics/george-soros-continues-quietly-pile-
wins-district-attorney-races/)

------
0xbear
It’s only fair. Google goes after conservatives, conservatives go after
Google. Don’t want your fortunes to depend on politics? Easy solution: stay
out of politics. Be neutral and above the fray, declare political discourse
(all of it, not just conservative points of view) socially unacceptable at
work.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Is there any real evidence of Google going after conservatives?

Is it not just a result of the fact that younger and better educated people
are less likely to be conservative that gives this impression?

~~~
0xbear
Google is very “Chinese Revolution” on the inside. You can totally have
negative career and social consequences for being public at work about your
conservative viewpoints and voting preferences. At the same time you can have
positive consequences for signaling virtue to liberals. You could say “that’s
not Google” doing this, but the thing is, Google totally supports, condones,
and encourages this behavior.

But those are internal affairs, so you might argue this is irrelevant. But
recently this attitude slipped outside with YouTube demonetization of
conservative commentators, forced de-trending of popular conservative videos
and forced trending of liberal ones?

If you want to play this ball, expect defense to get involved.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
I understand the general concept of what Google might do if it was actually
doing this, I was looking for some kind of evidence that it was actually
happening in reality.

I watch a vlog about EVs on Youtube, and the host of that complains about
being demonitized by some new algorithm. I'm fairly sure he's not a fascist
that's been put on some list by the Googlestapo, so it seems likely that other
people may just be jumping to conclusions.

~~~
0xbear
You “understand” everything, it seems. You just choose not to see it.

~~~
mark_edward
Amazing lack of evidence being provided.

------
tryingagainbro
America! Give $1000 to a Congressman and you buy what money in the real world
cannot.

In other countries corruption is more honest: want the license to build a
building? It will cost you an apartment or $XX,XXX. Personally, I prefer the
later...

