
Where in the World Is Larry Page? - kshatrea
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-09-13/larry-page-is-a-no-show-with-google-under-a-harsh-spotlight
======
Zelphyr
It's kind-of Congress' own fault here. They so often have these... events,
that are mostly for show and for the politicians to grandstand making them
seem tough to voters but really have very little substance. I doubt any
meaningful policy ever comes of them. Doesn't everybody know by now that
they're grilling these CEO's in front of the cameras and begging them for
money behind the cameras?

"outrage" indeed.

~~~
wybiral
The Senate Intelligence Committee hearings are usually pretty facts-first
unlike the other random hearings and sessions. I watch them on C-SPAN whenever
they happen (which isn't that frequent).

Edit: I strongly recommend watching these directly from C-SPAN rather than the
summarized spin-version from random news companies. You might be surprised how
little of their time is wasted on grandstanding. Yeah, some politicians will
throw in their jabs, but that's not the purpose of those committees and it's a
fractionally tiny amount of the dialog. But that's what the news focuses on
because it's the most sensational.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The Senate Intelligence Committee hearings are usually pretty facts-first

Granting, for the sake of argument, that SSCI public hearings are _on average_
more substantive and less grandstanding around pre-set narratives than other
public Congressional hearings [0], there was ample advance reason to believe
that _this_ hearing was not going to further that pattern.

> Yeah, some politicians will throw in their jabs, but that's not the purpose
> of those committees and it's a fractionally tiny amount of the dialog.

It may be a tiny amount of the dialog, but even then it's often the tiny
amount that actually is decisive in motivating the hearings, in much the only
way that advertising may be a minority of the airtime on commercial TV
networks, but it's 100% of the purpose.

[0] I don't think it's true on balance, but I do think it seems true based on
the selection of public hearings that get major media attention, because
substantive, non-showboating hearings of other committees rarely get
attention.

~~~
wybiral
Do you have any examples? I watch almost all of their public hearings and it's
rarely ever grandstanding. Again, you might have a couple of people take quick
jabs but if you watch the actual hearings (don't watch reporters take parts of
them out of context) it's usually very straight forward and constructive.

Part of it is also to function as a communication channel to the people. It
shows their constituents that they're asking the questions people want them to
ask and it would give Google's leaders a chance to explain their company-wide
position on issues in this case. But they have to care enough to show up.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Do you have any examples? I watch almost all of their public hearings and
> it's rarely ever grandstanding.

That's true of most committees; the difference that makes SSCI seem better is
that non-grandstanding hearings (or moments of hearings) from, say, the Senate
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry have roughly a 0% chance of
ever getting coverage from the major media, whereas, due to subject matter,
SSCI hearings can be newsworthy without grandstanding (though the
grandstanding still gets far disproportionate coverage.)

> Part of it is also to function as a communication channel to the people. It
> shows their constituents that they're asking the questions people want them
> to ask and it would give Google's leaders a chance to explain their company-
> wide position on issues in this case.

If Google needed the opportunity of an SSCI hearing to get any message it (or
a client) wanted to virtually any audience of concern, the uncontroversial
portion of the premise for inviting them to the hearing would collapse. Page
showing up improves the ability of the Senators that have prejudged Google to
get media coverage of their grandstanding, but it does nothing for Google's
ability to have it's message reach any audience it cares to have it reach.
There's no value to Google in voluntarily cooperating in a hearing concerning
matters on which so many members of the committee had publicly, explicitly,
and in quite immoderate terms prejudged Google and where the terms sent
clearly were incompatible with an intent of productive information gathering
rather than political scapegoating.

It's, of course, the prerogative of Congress members to use hearings for
grandstanding with high value PR target witnesses as props as a means of
gesturing to their constituents about their concern on an issue. It's also a
very good idea for those high value PR targets to decline to voluntarily
cooperate when it is clear that are being invited as punching bags. (It's both
good for the punching bags _and_ good for the integrity of the process of
government.)

~~~
wybiral
Did you even watch the hearing?

[https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/hearings/open-hearing-
fo...](https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/hearings/open-hearing-foreign-
influence-operations%E2%80%99-use-social-media-platforms-company-witnesses)

------
agoodthrowaway
From a PR point of view Google has handled this whole privacy debacle very
well. By keeping a very low profile on privacy, they’ve made sure Facebook
takes the heat. Facebook’s horrendous management of the issue has also allowed
Google to slide under the radar on the topic. Generally I think Page is doing
the right thing by keeping a low public profile.

~~~
godzillabrennus
Google didn’t play as fast and loose with sharing data as Facebook did. That
helps.

~~~
kungtotte
They never got _caught_ doing it. That doesn't mean they never have.

~~~
jonny_eh
You've never been caught murdering anyone, I assume.

~~~
bobdole123456
Not the second time, and that’s really the important part.

------
ddoran
"The European Union fined the company $5.1 billion this summer in an antitrust
case over the dominance of Google’s Android mobile operating system."

Damn, that's sloppy reporting. The EU didn't fine Google because of its
dominance, rather it was accused of using that dominance in an abusive manner
to advance the search/ad business [1].

[1] [https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-to-be-fined-5-billion-
by...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-to-be-fined-5-billion-by-eu-in-
android-case-1531903470)

------
l9k
_At this point, though, such a public-relations strategy feels dated. On
balance, the celebrity of even the most caricatured CEO (Zuckerberg) appears
to be a net positive for his company._

I disagree totally with that point. The "superstar CEO" Zuckerberg is now
ridiculed, hated, and negatively "meme-ed". He is now the face of censorship
(for some) and a laissezfaire strategy threatening democracies (for others).

Even the previous paragraph stated: " _Bill Gates had become a media
caricature during Microsoft Corp.’s three-year antitrust lawsuit_ ".

Page staying in the dark only generated this one article, not a real national
scandal. 99% of people don't know him and won't know him after that no-show.
Google's reputation is untouched.

Only loss is for the Senators not getting the spotlight.

~~~
RIMR
The real loss is Senators no longer trusting Alphabet/Google after this snub.

You really don't want to turn the government against you.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The real loss is Senators no longer trusting Alphabet/Google after this
> snub.

The Senators that wanted Larry or Sundar to voluntarily submit to and draw
more media attention to their spectacle of abuse directed at the firm (and
others in the industry) obviously didn't trust Google in the first place, and
the rest know the game and aren't going to be effected by this except perhaps
by realizing that Google's leadership isn't completely braindead politically.

There was no possible net upside for Google participating in the charade of a
hearing, and the committee rejecting Google's offer of the most qualified
person to address the substantive questions notionally at issue in response to
the voluntary invitation for participation was an unmistakable signal that
that was the case.

> You really don't want to turn the government against you.

You also don't want to voluntarily cooperate with the parts of the government
that have already turned against you and are trying to scapegoat you to build
support for policies hostile to your interests.

Law enforcement isn't the only part of government that can seemingly
innocently invite you to talk with malign intent, and it's not the only part
of government you should decline voluntary cooperation with when you don't
have good reason to believe that the intent of the invitation is aligned with
your interests.

------
dibstern
I don’t understand people on here complaining about the Senate demanding that
the leaders of a business answer for its actions. Sending your lawyer or an
underling is (1) a show of disrespect, (2) it shows you’re not taking
responsibility for your company, and (3) when the person answering the
questions isn’t really in charge, they can’t answer properly and they can’t
commit their companies to behaving differently.

People just seem propagandistically pro-Google on here. You’re mostly pretty
darn smart people. I don’t get it.

~~~
y-c-o-m-b
I don't think it's pro-Google, I think it has to do with the fact that these
hearings are made up of a gang of angry old people with God complex that not
only do not understand technology, but don't really have a desire to
understand it nor the desire to really change anything. I don't blame Google
one bit for not wanting to waste time and be ridiculed by these clowns.

~~~
geezerjay
> these hearings are made up of a gang of angry old people with God complex
> that not only do not understand technology, but don't really have a desire
> to understand it nor the desire to really change anything.

Those angry old people were chosen by their constituents to represent them in
public affairs. Supposedly their roles and their actions are the basis of a
democratic regime.

------
ThomPete
This is why I more or less stopped reading or watching the news. If something
is important I will find out. If I want to understand the world better I will
either read a book about a given subject, ask someone who knows something,
explore it on my own or debate it with someone who holds the opposite view of
me.

News especially these days is mostly sensationalist gossip made by people
who's primary incentives is to get you to click their link or share it because
you are outraged so they get more clicks.

I don't mind debating politics or other more problematic subjects but I don't
get riled up by some article trying to paint the world in black and white,
seen the other side of how the media is reporting something too many times.

If you want to have another example besides this weird can completely forced
article look no further to the Elon Musk interview on Joe Rogan last which
made their shares drop 8% for the day because he took one puff. Everyone went
berserk because you are not supposed to do something like that if you are the
CEO of a large company. Instead of actually listening to the interview which
was almost 3 hours and super interesting, that puff became what the media took
away from it. The media is no longer in the service of the people it's in the
service of the clicks that's about it because it's much more fun to be
outraged and gossip than to actually try and understand.

Each to their own of course but that's why I stopped following the news
cycles. Now go and watch that great interview with Elon and while you are at
it go watch Peter Thiel on Dave Rubin an equally great show that takes the
time to unfold subjects even if that means three hour formats.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself
becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of
this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to
confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day. The man who
never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them;
inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is
filled with falsehoods and errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the
great facts, and the details are all false."

It's kind of interesting how this feels like such a relatively new problem,
yet that quote is from Thomas Jefferson, 1807.

~~~
ThomPete
Yeah, I don't think the problem is new it's just the consequences of the
problem that are different.

------
throwaway5752
Google offered to send someone to the hearing, but the Senate didn't feel they
were high ranking enough, so they didn't let the person fill the seat and let
it remain "empty" even though Google offered.

Disgraceful grandstanding by Warner.

~~~
forgot-my-pw
Can't blame him for not going. They tried to crucify Mark Zuckerberg on live
broadcast last time.

------
lisper
One thing this article completely neglects to mention: Larry has vocal chord
paralysis and so has difficulty speaking.

[https://www.wired.com/2013/05/larry-page-vocal-
chords/](https://www.wired.com/2013/05/larry-page-vocal-chords/)

This could have something to do with why he's reluctant to do a lot of public
speaking nowadays.

[UPDATE] I was wrong: the article does mention this, I just missed it. I would
delete this comment but I can't since it has been replied to.

~~~
Arubis
While it's true (sibling comments) that this is indeed mentioned in the
article, it's well into the body, about two-thirds down. This strikes me as
extremely relevant information: Page acts "as if [he] had only so many words
left to speak." (ftfa)

Why would he waste his breath, if it's actually limited? The mistake here
wasn't in Page not showing up--it was in _nobody_ showing up.

~~~
PeterisP
That's not on Google - as the article states, Google offered multiple other
officials, but that was declined, they wanted Page or nothing and so got
nothing.

------
nostrademons
I'd wondered about this when I heard Google wasn't sending any of their top
brass. In my experience, it's very out of character for Google's top
leadership to not predict when people are going to be pissed off about a
decision. And it was stupendously easy to tell that Congress would be pissed
off by this decision - when I mentioned the news to my wife she was like "You
can do that? Just stand up Congress?"

I'm reminded of Margaery Tyrell's line from the season 6 finale of Game of
Thrones. "Cersei understands the consequences of her absence, and she is
absent anyway, which means that she does not intend to suffer those
consequences."

Lest we start panicking, I don't think that this necessarily means we're all
going to die in a fireball of wildfyre (though that could happen anyway). But
it's likely Google actually welcomes regulation, because it will entrench
their position and serve as a barrier to any new competitors emerging. They
know that neither the average Congressperson nor their constituents understand
economics, and so will likely pass legislation that harms Google's unborn
competitors far more than it harms Google.

~~~
advisedwang
Google tried to send their top lawyer, Kent Walker, but was rejected by the
Senate [1] less than two weeks before the hearing.

[1] [https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/08/23/senate-
intelligen...](https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/08/23/senate-intelligence-
committee-rejects-kent-walker-as-googles-pick-to-
testify/?slreturn=20180813125638)

~~~
puzzle
Nitpick: Dave Drummond is, or at least was, Kent Walker's boss, board member
and the top lawyer. He focused on business, though.

Kent Walker was the policy guy. Ironically, this article from six weeks ago
makes the point that he's the new Eric Schmidt when it comes to governments:

[https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/30/google-kent-walker-svp-of-
gl...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/30/google-kent-walker-svp-of-global-
affairs.html)

------
chosenbreed
I might be missing something here but my thinking is that Google Inc/Alphabet
is bigger than Larry Page. If for whatever reason he was not able to attend he
could have sent a representative chosen from among the senior executives. It
seems that neither his attendance nor Google's participation in the whole
thing was not mandatory

~~~
sidibe
They offered their legal guy who is also one of the main leaders at Google and
is probably the right person to talk about this but Congress refused. They
want figureheads.

~~~
theDoug
This is correct, they rejected anyone but top officials.

[https://www.law.com/2018/09/04/after-senate-intelligence-
com...](https://www.law.com/2018/09/04/after-senate-intelligence-committee-
rejection-googles-kent-walker-posts-testimony-online/?slreturn=20180813100518)

(Disclosure: I work at Google)

~~~
deusofnull
Of course they only wanted the senior flesh.

I'm not trying to dunk on Congress too hard, but so much of their public
hearings are about the spectacle of gov officials holding "someone"
accountable.

And it's bipartisan too, the spectacle.

The Dems were looking to further the Russia election manipulation spectacle,
and I'd guess Repubs were hoping to advance their narratives of
"shadowbanning" and ideological search results bias.

~~~
DFHippie
To be fair to Congress, their job is really to shape events in the public
interest. Considering these hearings to be pure fact-finding is a category
error. If they browbeat a celebrity, this shapes events in multiple ways: it
affects fundraising, it affects the behavior of the individual browbeaten and
those in this individual's orbit, it affects the public narrative, and if
affects actions at the voting booth. And that is only the beginning. It is an
extremely complicated game with numerous players and feedback loops. You can
call it "grandstanding", as though it's purposeless and ineffectual, but
obviously it isn't, and really this is their job. They want to speak to
certain people because they calculate that this will give them leverage to
shape events in a certain way.

This is how the sausage is made.

~~~
deusofnull
Certainly. One name for that for that entire phenomenon you're describing the
functioning of is 'The Spectacle'.

I don't mean just the dictionary definition of spectacle, rather I'm
referencing the Situationist + Critical Theory concept of The Spectacle. Guy
Debord's "The Society of the Spectacle" is a wild piece of thought.

It's an absolute tome, but essentially society is now mediated by social
relations of spectacle which are symbols / signs / abstractions of actual
material relations. And like you're saying, politicians play a huge role in
wielding spectacle towards their material goals. Some of this might seem
strangely familiar / redundant but that just speaks to the impact Situationist
thinking has had on our conception of society and culture.

Guy Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle (Paris, 1967).
[http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/1.htm](http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/1.htm)

------
dzdt
I would feel much better about being a google user if they were standing up
strongly for the original "do no evil" ethos. Where is Page indeed? It really
seems like the ethical stance has faded away.

~~~
maxxxxx
Idealism goes away once a company has reached a certain size and has to reach
for big growth like Google. They all have to turn into big faceless
corporations.

That's why we shouldn't celebrate things like trillion dollar companies or the
richest man in the world but we should celebrate small companies. That's where
ethics and also innovation can happen .

~~~
alexgmcm
Big companies are just successful small companies.

IBM, Bell Labs etc. did far more innovation than any Mom and Pop shop.

~~~
gnodar
> Big companies are just successful small companies.

That would imply either that big companies all started as small companies
which became successful and grew large, which is false (some big companies
start big). Or that big companies operate the same way as small companies,
just at a larger scale, which is unequivocally false.

------
gok
> The vision was to stretch this tube system, arced hundreds of feet in the
> air, from a ground-level entry point on Google’s Mountain View campus to an
> exit 35 miles north, in San Francisco, so Google’s rainbow-colored beach
> cruisers might one day be seen flying over U.S. Highway 101. Yes, it sounds
> like a Hyperloop for bikes.

And you're telling me this ran into problems!?

------
m_st
Disclosure: I didn't fully read the article as it's rather dull... "404 - Page
not found", doesn't Bloomberg have more _niveau_ than that?

It's known that Page has problems with his vocal chords. So I wouldn't be
astonished that he doesn't show up for a hearing if he's not forced to so.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
I could totally understand that in a vacuum, but Google also chose not to send
Sundar Pichai, Google's current CEO, whose vocal chords work just fine. Which
sends a much stronger message that Google just doesn't want to talk to
Congress.

My personal impression of Page and Brin's near silence of late is that they
have semi-retired by effectively promoting themselves out of Google during the
creation of Alphabet. Still on top, still in charge, but having delegated
pretty much everything down to a lower level.

~~~
thrav
Benioff is in the process of doing the same. None of these people have any
desire to run Ops for a giant corporation. They want to focus on the stuff
they like. For Page, it’s the tech. For Benioff, it’s the philanthropy, social
responsibility, equality, political stuff.

------
mediterrenean
I like him giving the the middle finger. Why does he have to satisfy a bunch
of egomaniac corrupt politician who has been net negative for the society. Why
we have to watch in awe of their complete disconnect from current affairs of
the society due to their total ignorance?

~~~
toomuchtodo
Because as a voter and citizen, I want my politicians keeping Google and other
tech companies in check, and regulate them if necessary.

~~~
mrhappyunhappy
Are you sure they are your politicians and have any of your interests in mind?

~~~
toomuchtodo
They're closer to my interests then those running large tech companies.

I care about my privacy more than free Facebook and Gmail, and continue to
evangelize GDPR style legislation with US legislators.

~~~
mediterrenean
When you start your argument by comparing company CEOs to politicians you are
already lost it.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Perhaps. Politicians are far more powerful than CEOs, and have the ability to
breakup companies or prohibit their operation.

------
mrhappyunhappy
I don't know, if I were a billionaire with a private island in the Caribbean,
had paralyzed vocal cords and knew damn well what would happen at the hearing
(see Zuckerberg), I'd also agree with my colleagues that showing up would do
no good and that staying on the sidelines would be the best course of action.
Why indulge a bunch of bloodthirsty politicians when you can do pretty much
anything else please like working on things you love. Bonus: stock won't tank
if you slip up and say the wrong word.

------
pwaivers
It is interesting that Larry Page stays out of the spotlight so much. Everyone
knows who Mark Zuckerberg is, but many probably couldn't tell you who the CEO
of Google/Alphabet is.

~~~
chiefalchemist
But could we not flip that around? That is, Zuck goes for the limelight (why?)
while his peers do not?

On the other hand Dorsey isn't low profile and I don't think most (non-tech)
people would recognize him. Ev Williams? Even less so.

Prehaps, sometimes, it's also the media who makes or breaks public
perceptions?

~~~
creaghpatr
Facebook got "The Social Network", Google got..."The Internship"?

------
Jerry2
Larry Page probably didn't attend the Senate hearings because he knew that
this video was going to get leaked:

[https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-
googl...](https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google-
leaderships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/)

He would have been grilled for hours over it.

~~~
eutropia
At the risk of sounding partisan, why should I trust a breitbart dot com link?

~~~
Jerry2
You shouldn't. It's an internal Google video. So unless you're a conspiracy
theorist who thinks it was faked, it should be eye opening.

------
kawsper
> “What I didn’t see in the last year was a __strong central voice __about how
> [Google’s] going to operate on these issues that are societal and less
> technical,”

That's not careful phrasing when talking about a man with paralysed vocal
chords.

~~~
zanmat0
This sounds like being offended purely for the purpose of being offended. I
doubt even the subject of the article himself would have caught that.

------
at-fates-hands
I can honestly see him being withdrawn as just not caring or not wanting to be
apart of the company or the culture. He shows up every know and then again
just to keep his standing. He can reap the financial stability it offers and
still work on his moonshots or other pet projects.

I know a lot of college buddies who were some of the smartest people I knew.
When they hit their 30's, they just had enough of the go go go lifestyle and
they suddenly wanted to be alone and just enjoy life either by themselves or
with a very small group of special friends.

I can see Larry being like this. He just wants to be by himself and out of the
spotlight.

------
kyledrake
> Alphabet said in a statement that it had offered its head of global affairs
> for the hearing and that “enabling Larry to focus on the other bets and
> long-term technical problems is exactly what Alphabet was set up for.”

So basically they had offered someone of authority here, but the politicians
wanted to have their show trial with the celebrities instead.

~~~
wybiral
In the domain of information warfare and propaganda campaigns public awareness
and attention is a large part of the counter strategy. So even if it were just
to attract eyeballs to the issue that doesn't mean it was a "show trial".

If you watch these Intelligence Committee hearings I think you'll find them to
be focused on strategy, partnerships, and actions rather than some form of
"trial".

~~~
kyledrake
Then they should have invited the actual experts on the topic at these
companies. Google, again, says they offered someone to speak and were told it
could only be Page. What if they told Facebook it could only be Mark and not
Sheryl?

Either way, if they actually wanted the CEO of Google, that happens to be
Sundar Pichai, not Larry Page (he's the CEO of the holding company).

~~~
wybiral
I was under the understanding that they asked for either Page or Pichai.

And Google basically responded with "it's either our legal team or nothing".

------
CodeSheikh
It is interesting they had "GOOGLE" printed on the reserved seat. Where in
reality Sundar Pichai is the ceo of Google and Larry Page is the ceo of
Alphabet. So the Senate committee was actually expecting Mr. Pichai and
Bloomberg got it wrong.

~~~
394549
> It is interesting they had "GOOGLE" printed on the reserved seat. Where in
> reality Sundar Pichai is the ceo of Google and Larry Page is the ceo of
> Alphabet. So the Senate committee was actually expecting Mr. Pichai and
> Bloomberg got it wrong.

But only technically. Google is Alphabet and Alphabet is Google, just like
Blackwater is still Blackwater no matter what obfuscating name they're using
this week.

------
closetCS
I don't see why this would be smart move for Google/Larry Page at all. If He
goes, either he will fail, which would be disaster similar to Facebook for
Google, or he will come out clean, which wouldn't change anything. The
majority are still going to use google products regardless of public image, so
not going best maintains that image.

------
linkmotif
Who are these guys thinking they can make anyone show up and get grilled by a
bunch of politicians looking to score some easy points? That’s offensive. That
Dorsey and Sandberg showed up shows that they are desperate for attention or
approval. God Bless America where the government can’t force you to waste your
valuable time talking to Marco Rubio.

------
intended
Doing the smart thing and retiring?

Theres not much that can be said about communication online. Its going to be
terrible, even without VC money thrown at it.

This isn't hyperbole, its just history - even with the first ever online game,
back in the text days, the first griefer existed. In old forums, we had
eternal september.

Communication online is just hacking the human brain more efficiently.

------
dotancohen
It was worth reading the fine article just to see this fibbed screenshot of a
common error message:

[https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ir0HVqer5h2...](https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ir0HVqer5h2c/v2/600x-1.jpg)

> Image text: 404 Page not found

------
paulsutter
Long before the hearing Google said they would send Kent Walker to answer
questions. He was not allowed to attend the hearing, in order to create the
stunt of an empty chair.

Bloomberg I’m disappointed.

------
imhoguy
Isn't he building Ava robot on his remote island?

------
m3kw9
Didn't know he was missing till now. Maybe he is just doing some heads down
work and letter another person take media duties.

------
tscherno
What if Google knew through data-mining what the Congress was up to and thus
didn't send Page to the hearing. ;-)

------
snaky
TLDR

> He was also averse to the internal politics common to running a
> 60,000-employee conglomerate. A former senior director at Google remembers a
> heated debate among the “L Team,” as Googlers used to call Page’s circle of
> executive consiglieri, that escalated to a point where it required his
> mediation. “Can’t you sort this out on your own?” he told his deputies.

> The company’s abrupt reorganization in 2015 elevated Pichai to CEO of Google
> and Page to chief of its umbrella company, Alphabet. It was perhaps the
> cleverest retirement plan ever devised.

------
theandrewbailey
At this rate, I can see Mr. Page being the rich (evil?) guy from the movies
that no one ever sees or has heard from in decades, and everyone is scared of.
He will pull up in a limousine, slip you a piece of paper (with bad news on
it) out of a crack in the window, and drive off again.

------
stevehawk
In all seriousness he probably didn't show because he was offended they'd make
him. He has been a large proponent of perfect data preventing crime and
maintaining society and is very cooperative with the IC.

------
refurb
_Elon Musk interview on Joe Rogan last which made their shares drop 8% for the
day because he took one puff. Everyone went berserk because you are not
supposed to do something like that if you are the CEO of a large company._

The stock dropped because the CAO departed less than a month after starting at
Telsa. Not because of the puff of marijuana.

~~~
fossuser
I don’t think that’s actually true though it’s been repeated a lot - people
have left without that large of a crash (and in this case it looks like they
joined to help with going private so it’s not a huge surprise they left).

The fast crashes seem more related to stupid media freak outs - similar to FB
and the Cambridge Analytica thing.

~~~
jstandard
I don't see Cambridge Analytica as a "stupid media freak out", it exposed a
concerning and far reaching privacy issue with the Facebook platform.

Concerns about Tesla's solvency have been building for months. The departure
of several high-level executives is a big concern and what moved markets. It
might signal that people are jumping ship.

~~~
ThomPete
I am unconvinced about that.

If it was the case that CA actually was able to do the things the media
claimed they didn and affect people like that, FB would be in an even better
position to affect people which means FB shares should have risen not fallen.

We do not live in the world created by the media about the capabilities of CA
not even close.

But as they say. The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay
solvent. That irrationality is further fueld by the medias attempt to dumb
down things IMO.

~~~
jstandard
I don't think it was about CA capabilities per se, but the privacy blowback
which followed.

The issue became mainstream and gave rise to the "Delete Facebook" movement
which regular folks as well as celebrities[1] piled onto. It's fair to discuss
the faddish nature of the #delete movements, but I don't see any positive
angle in it for FB.

It also forced FB to overhaul their platform, most notably applying larger
restrictions[2] to the amount of data available via APIs. This wasn't
grandstanding, it cut revenue streams for many advertising and data companies.
I'm not sure this had a direct effect on FB's revenue, but indirectly it makes
FB less attractive as a platform for hyper-targeted advertising. This can
eventually lead to a lower ROI on FB ads vs. other channels and thus, lower
share of a marketing budget.

[1] [https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/will-ferrell-delete-
fa...](https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/will-ferrell-delete-facebook-
account-cambridge-analytica-1202738924/)

[2] [https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/04/facebook-instagram-api-
shu...](https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/04/facebook-instagram-api-shut-down/)

~~~
ThomPete
I don't think I agree.

This wasn't anything new for most people who knew just a little bit about how
FB worked for 3rd parties.

What changed was Trump. Had this been Hillary we wouldn't been talking about
it at all and I am pretty sure FB wouldn't have been called to the hearing.

So I would say it's mostly a media driven thing but of course don't have any
final proof. Just pretty sure it wasn't the privacy part that was the problem
but rather Trump.

~~~
jstandard
I think we're talking past each other a bit.

I responded to someone drawing similarities between Cambridge Analytica and
Elon Musk's joint toke, claiming both were examples of "stupid media
freakouts" which caused a drop in the stock price of their respective
companies.

I think those 2 media events are very different from each other and have very
different consequences for their respective companies. I might be proven wrong
though if Musk is brought to task in front of a senate committee for his pot-
smoking ways.

I agree with you that Trump's election may have made it more likely that
Cambridge Analytica became a big deal in the public eye. There's more
controversy to fuel media frenzy if the person who got elected is seen to have
unjustly ascended the throne.

------
908087
> According to one Larry loyalist, Page’s privacy, besides being a personal
> preference, is also a carefully considered company strategy.

That's gold, given the fact that his company has set out to completely destroy
the concept of privacy for the rest of the population.

------
chasd00
the guy who invented Perl? ..probably trying to figure out what a script he
wrote a few years ago actually does ;)

~~~
davidcbc
That's Larry Wall

------
warent
I wonder if he's been diagnosed with something that could potentially be
terminal if it goes uncured (e.g. aggressive cancer) and he's trying to keep
it a secret so that Alphabet's stock price isn't severely damaged

EDIT I'm not sure why this is receiving so many downvotes. Is it that
unlikely? I'm not saying I _want_ him to be sick, it's just speculation.

~~~
_jal
Or maybe he's on a secret spy mission to another planet!

~~~
IncRnd
Well, the FBI just closed down the NM solar observatory for Page to
communicate with aliens.

------
citilife
To be fair, the government heavily relies on the data Google collects... I
highly doubt the consequences are going to be too dire for them.

On the other hand, it does appear as if Google (and many of the other mega-
corps) are pretty much acting as if they are sovereign in their own right. In
this case, it appears Page honestly just ditched it, but if he gets away with
it - he sets a precedent.

