Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

90+% of Google's political donations go to a single party. Is their business fundamentally political?

[1] http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/14/technology/google_democrats/




First, I don't think this link proves that Google is political, because that link is about their employees. That link just greatly increases the chances that Google's employees are political, in this case democratic.

Second, I think I'm using the word political here to talk about ideological interests, rather than self-interested ones.

But let me presume that link was about the actual company donating to the democrats. Setting aside the issue of Thiel, because I don't know much about him, I think its harder to classify businesses as 'fundamentally political' because of their more singular motive of profit. Businesses, at least those on a massive scale like Google, have a clear goal in mind when donating to candidates: procuring legislation in favor of themselves. Thus, their choice doesn't seem 'political' because it can be boiled down to self-interest. If they were giving lots of money to democrats, it could probably be explained by the democrats being more easily 'bought' on something Google wanted. I wouldn't say that an oil company is 'political' for giving money to republicans instead of environmentally conscious democrats--that's just self-interest to me.

Meanwhile, I think a person donating is much more likely to be doing so because of ideological reasons. However, the greater a person's stake in the outcome of legislation, the more likely their motive is not 'political'. For example, if billionaires don't want a crackdown on tax havens, its probably because of self-interest rather than some ideological commitment that taxation is unjust. Given this, Thiel's donation record alone could just be evidence of self-interest. However, as per the posts around this discussion, frequent interviews with the National Review, Cato, etc., plus the fact that I think its much more probable that individuals are political than companies, makes me think that the Google/Thiel comparison is inaccurate.


Do they also provide a disproportionate amount of airtime to Mother Jones and the American Prospect? Are they also aggressively pursuing an agenda that people have explicitly described as "liberal".

It's not one thing, but its the combination of his apparent agenda coupled with his background.

With that said, if Google decided to promote planned parenthood links and hid southern baptist links, then I'd probably believe that politics might have something to do with it.

Everyone has a bias. But its important that you be able to see through their front to see what might be their actual end goal that's consistent with their bias.


Have you considered the possibility that regardless of his other views, Peter Thiel may genuinely think that college is not for everyone?

I.e., don't you think it's possible that his individualist, pro-free thinker views inform both his libertarian political views and also his views that our rigid college-based gatekeeping system is unnecessary?


I.e., don't you think it's possible that his individualist, pro-free thinker views inform both his libertarian political views and also his views that our rigid college-based gatekeeping system is unnecessary?

Probably not since one doesn't naturally flow from the other. Especially since he creates and participates in a several other gatekeeping systems.

Peter Thiel as a libertarian is depressed simply because, despte being white and rich, he can't find a way to deprive other groups of some basic civil rights. What freedom do you have if you can't deprive others of theirs? Indeed Mr. Thiel.


What freedom do you have if you can't deprive others of theirs? Indeed Mr. Thiel.

If you are making statements like this, you clearly know nothing about either libertarianism or Peter Thiel.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: