
Google Makes Most of Close Ties to White House - protomyth
http://www.wsj.com/article_email/google-makes-most-of-close-ties-to-white-house-1427242076-lMyQjAxMTA1NTIzNDUyNTQyWj
======
apsec112
Doesn't it seem a bit suspicious when newspapers keep going after tech
companies, who just _happen_ to be their main competitors for advertising
dollars?

I'm not saying the articles are false (most of them, anyway). I'm sure Google
did lobby the FTC, and there really were (very small) protests about tech
buses, and Apple really did collude to hold down wages, and so on. But
somehow, when a tech company does something bad, it always winds up on the
national news, while the thousands of other companies doing similar things are
quietly ignored.

"Remember the exercises in critical reading you did in school, where you had
to look at a piece of writing and step back and ask whether the author was
telling the whole truth? If you really want to be a critical reader, it turns
out you have to step back one step further, and ask not just whether the
author is telling the truth, but why he's writing about this subject at all."
\-
[http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html)

~~~
pmorici
Probably has more to do with the fact that tech companies in general actively
try to portray a progressive, benevolent do good image of themselves. Because
of that, when they run amuck it's more news worthy or at least more salacious
than when your typical scummy corporation does the same.

~~~
bbbtech
making your corporate slogan "don't be evil" invites a closer inspection

------
JoshTriplett
Seems like a necessary evil for any sufficiently large company. Get big enough
and everybody wants their say, including various local governments. You can't
avoid them completely, so the next best thing is to have a very good
relationship with the one whose jurisdiction affects you the most to keep them
as uninvolved as possible.

Now, when that kind of relationship turns into getting the government to go
after your competitors, overlook actions that are themselves unethical, make
life more difficult for anyone not as large as you, that's highly unethical.
On the other hand, trying to make sure that you don't suddenly get treated
differently as a large company than an equivalent small company doesn't seem
unreasonable (though having to do it in the first place does).

~~~
javert
> Now, when that kind of relationship turns into getting the government to go
> after your competitors, overlook actions that are themselves unethical, make
> life more difficult for anyone not as large as you, that's highly unethical.

But that is what the competition is doing. You can't ask a CEO not to do the
best to protect his employees and shareholder value. The CEO of any large
American corporation has this huge and unresolvable ethical dilemma.

This is a symptom of rule by men, as opposed to rule by law.

Rule by men is what the American voters want. It is what allows them to "get
away with" all kinds of social programs---both conservative and liberal ones.

Given a choice between sacrificing the public and sacrificing my company, I
personally, if I were a major corporation CEO, would put my company first. In
other words, I'd choose to play it Game of Thrones style.

Woe to those who don't have $potus on their team.

~~~
JoshTriplett
I'm not arguing that it doesn't make sense. I'm arguing that it's unethical.
Also:

> You can't ask a CEO not to do the best to protect his employees and
> shareholder value.

Yes, I can. Your requirement is not to maximize profits at all cost unless
that's what you write into your corporate charter. Don't do that. You can just
as easily write a charter that leaves you room to make decisions that maximize
long-term value even at the expense of short-term value, or that allow you to
make ethical decisions at the expense of mercenary decisions, or even a "we
can do whatever we want, live with it" charter.

(And the interests of employees and shareholders are not always aligned. An
ethical decision may involve favoring the former at the expense of the latter,
for instance.)

~~~
nostrademons
Only if you're a B-corporation [1]. There are a number of court precedents
that hold that a company's officers have a fiduciary duty to maximize long-
term shareholder value.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation#Differences...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation#Differences_from_traditional_corporations)

(Commenting on the main point made in this thread: it is technically the
government's responsibility to not be swayed by whatever corporate influence
tactics are used on them. They do a piss-poor job at it - somewhat
understandably, as the money & influence provided by corporations often makes
the difference between staying in office and being removed from office. But in
theory, you can ask for whatever boons you want, it's just that our elected
officials are supposed to consider the rights of _all_ citizens when granting
them.)

~~~
JoshTriplett
> (Commenting on the main point made in this thread: it is technically the
> government's responsibility to not be swayed by whatever corporate influence
> tactics are used on them. They do a piss-poor job at it - somewhat
> understandably, as the money & influence provided by corporations often
> makes the difference between staying in office and being removed from
> office. But in theory, you can ask for whatever boons you want, it's just
> that our elected officials are supposed to consider the rights of all
> citizens when granting them.)

Agreed, and again, seeking _preferential_ treatment (whether directly or in
the form of regulations that are easier for you to comply with than your
competitors) seems blatantly unethical. However, it shouldn't take asking a
"boon" to stop the inexorable "this looks big enough and has enough money in
it now, time to screw with it" cycle that seems to crop up every time an
industry or company gets large enough for local governments to notice.

------
IBM
You can read about the lobbying operation Google conducted to avoid the FTC
from pursuing their case here:

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-google-is-
transfo...](http://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)

------
ccvannorman
Well, after decades of Comcast, Lockheed, .. (and hundreds of other companies
I don't much like) lobbying in Washington, at least this one is slightly
better (read: more likely to lobby for things I personally agree with)

~~~
raverbashing
Yes, they're playing the game

But I'd rather have them push for net neutrality than for budget for more
military assets.

(Now what we need is to find Oil on Mars or Tritium on the Moon or something)

------
chucksmart
Maybe Google has a database with information that the Government is interested
in?

