> Questions have been raised about who funds the Google Transparency Project. The CfA declined to say, and this prompted suspicion that it is bankrolled by rival media and internet companies keen to check the company’s power.
If you're going to be a transparency-watchdog, it helps that your own organization remains transparent as well.
It is mostly likely google is the nrw kid on the block trying this sort of thing, and the first tech company to try it at this extent. People just don't like change, and the people who used to have that power (large financial institutions ) don't like that the weird kids from palo alto are moving in their territory
Right. Basically the banks have been playing this game for so long and are quite smart about it so they've learned how to keep things on the down low so the public won't get up in arms about it. They're also way ahead of tech in the PR game (or rather, not having undesireable PR pop up). Just look at how much flak big tech gets vs big banks (imo both have issues) with respect to gender equality and inclusivity, even though the banks are just as bad if not worse for women and many minority groups.
I think big banks get much more flak than tech companies, but it's about issues that affect average people's lives much more than gender equality for people with high-paying tech and banking jobs.
For example, the banks and the housing bubble they created destroyed many ordinary people's lives: lots of people who were sold mortgages they couldn't afford lost their homes due to foreclosures, and many people lost their jobs in the ensuing recession. There were lots of people asking why no bankers went to prison for some of the massive fraud that went on (subprime CDOs being rated as AAA investments, etc.).
Remember that there's an Occupy Wall Street movement, but not an Occupy Silicon Valley movement (not yet, at least).
People are just used to it, it's not that they are good at hiding it. They just don't care about hiding it.
They absolutely are. Goldman Sachs has earned the derisive nickname "Government Sachs" for a reason.
It is not. It just that GS has never claimed its mission was to "Do No Evil" and never positioned itself on a moral pedestal. Google did, which was a well calculated PR move and which propelled its popularity for many years. "Look at our bright fun colors, we are so playful, honest, and cute! We got all your data, but don't worry, it all just for fun".
So there is nothing wrong with that of course. Unless they later on turn out to move against that perception. Then I think it is quite fair to single them out and point a finger at their hypocrisy.
It is not very different than say a person claiming, they are righteous, moral, kind, etc then getting caught stealing or doing other things. They get a worse backlash if they just hadn't been advertising their superior ethics beforehand.
People are up in arms over this.
> But Weismann said the scale of Google’s influence was almost unprecedented. “The revolving door isn’t unique to Google,” Weismann said. “What’s surprising is how aggressively the company has hired public officials, and how little attention it has received.”
Google isn't the first or the last to do this. But it's doing it a lot more than others, and with almost no pushback.
We saw a similar thing with lobbying in the US, where Google is among the top spenders (and the top among tech companies), but Google's public image seems to prevent much criticism from being aimed at it.
To be fair, that's not a great commendation.
You sure about that? Just a week ago, a mafia expert called the UK "most corrupt country in the world".
Give this a read:
UK is most corrupt country in the world, says mafia expert Roberto Saviano http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/roberto-savia...
It seems like a no brainer they're going to play an ever growing role in government.
How big a role do they play? What is the limits?
If there wasn't a steady stream of new threats (ranging from minor to existential) coming out of government, there'd be less need to maintain influence within it.
Google is a massive corporation with unprecedented information about ordinary people. Information that we would never let governments collect on us. As Google becomes more connected to governments, that separation might break down.
The Snowden revelations showed us part of the hidden picture here. But the public picture, as described in this article, is enough to worry about.
1. We need to pay & respect regulators well enough that people will want to pursue it as a career, because once you start down it you won't be allowed to work in industry.
2. Expertise can be difficult to develop, but it's absolutely necessary for complex industries. Who is best-equipped to regulate, say, fossil fuel exploration? An experienced expert from that industry, since they know the ins and outs intimately. But they are also likely to have conflicts of interest. See Deepwater Horizon for an example of how badly it can go wrong when expert regulators turn a blind eye.
Occasionally it will go very well, like with Tom Wheeler of the FCC. He is an expert veteran of the telecom industry, and he seems to have public good in mind, and he values the regulatory role well enough to put some real effort into it and take professional risks. But his case is exceptional -- it's rare to find someone like that, from what I've seen.
It will be a cancerous flaw staining the reputation that Google has thus far earned, until it goes away.
It feels like a pre-emptive "Altria" or "Xe Services" type rebrand, and it smells foul and deceptive.
Hopefully the media keeps reminding everyone what Alphabet really is...
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/03/21/clinton-emails-s...