Google and Facebook: Unelected Superpowers?

theodp (442580) writes "'The government is not the only American power whose motivations need to be rigourously examined,' writes The Telegraph's Katherine Rushton. 'Some 2,400 miles away from Washington, in Silicon Valley, Google is aggressively gaining power with little to keep it in check. It has cosied up to governments around the world so effectively that its chairman, Eric Schmidt, is a White House advisor. In Britain, its executives meet with ministers more than almost any other corporation. Google can't be blamed for this: one of its jobs is to lobby for laws that benefit its shareholders, but it is up to governments to push back. As things stand, Google — and to a lesser extent, Facebook — are in danger of becoming the architects of the law.' Schmidt, by the way, is apparently interested in influencing at least two current hot-button White House issues. Joined by execs from Apple, Oracle, and Facebook, the Google Chairman asserted in a March letter to Secretary of State John Kerry that the proposed Keystone XL pipeline is not in the economic interests of the U.S.; the Obama administration on Friday extended the review period on the pipeline, perhaps until after the Nov. 4 congressional elections. And as a 'Major Contributor' to Mark Zuckerberg's FWD.us PAC, Schmidt is also helping to shape public opinion on the White House's call for immigration reform; FWD.us just launched new attack ads (videos) and a petition aimed at immigration reform opponent Rep. Steve King. In Dave Eggers' The Circle, politicians who impede the company execs' agenda are immediately brought down. But that's fiction, right?"

Comments

Who watches the watchers

[graphius]

We need oversight for government, and we need oversight for corporations. We the people* don't give a crap as long as our ipad can stream entertainment. Sometimes I wonder if democracy is dead.

Re:Who watches the watchers

[Shakrai]

Sometimes I wonder if democracy is dead.

Sometimes I wonder if I was the only one paying attention in Civics and Social Studies. Cliff notes version:

1) The United States is not a Democracy, it's a Republic.
2) The devolution of Democracies into fragmented self-interests is a problem that's been studied since the time of Athens. It should surprise no one.
3) The United States Federal Government was obstinately set up to minimize the aforementioned trend, but several big mistakes (Reynolds v. Sims and the 17th Amendment top the list) along the way and 200 years of mission creep have undermined most of the protections put in place.

What can we do about it? You've got me. My best suggestion is to pray for the emergence of an existential threat, because that's the only thing that will get the American people to set aside their differences long enough to find the sort of common ground it took to come up with the original Constitution. You've actually got two problems to overcome:

1) The iPad crowd's apathy towards the political process, which is reinforced by:
2) The tendency of those engaged in that process to assume that those who disagree with them are out to destroy the American way of life.

Re:Who watches the watchers

[xenoc_1]

Sometimes I wonder if I was the only one paying attention in Civics and Social Studies. Cliff notes version:

1) The United States is not a Democracy, it's a Republic. ...

Oh jeez this again? The classic GOP / Libertarian / Tea weak-minds binary thinking that gets the meaning of both "republic" and "democracy" wrong.

The US is (supposed to be) a democracy. Just ask any living current or ex-President. Look at any respected list of "countries that are democracies". You do the research. It's simple.

The US is a republic. As in, "not a monarchy".

Republics can be democracies or they can be dictatorships, and pretty much anything in between. There is also nothing in the word "republic" which implies "representative". Just ask North Koreans.

Democracies can be direct democracies, like ancient Athens or a current-day New England Town Meeting or California ballot initiative. Or they can be representative. There is nothing in the word "democracy" that implies "direct-only".

"Democracy" and "Republic" are orthogonal concepts, they are not antonyms. Even when the US Senate was appointed, it was appointed by state legislatures which were comprised of elected representatives, who were elected by democratic elections. As opposed to being appointed by the monarch or being passed down via aristocratic houses.

Actually nowadays we are closer to that, with the money=speech nonsense and an increasingly distractable and distracted public who will vote whichever way paid media brainwashes them to do. House Clinton, House Bush, House Kennedy, and the upstart House Paul.

You may flip the order of the following words around, depending on what you want to emphasize, change some from adjectives to nouns, but all these terms are needed to properly define what the US system of government is:

Constitutional Federal Republic governed as a Representative Democracy,

or a
Federal Constitutional Representative Democratic Republic.

Choose your emphasis, but you cannot leave any of those terms out without misrepresenting how the system is designed.

• It's a Federation of States. Not a unitary central government with weak subdivisions that have only specifically designated powers (like for example Uruguay is, where the "departamentos" of my new country of residence are far weaker than US States or even Canadian provinces, are more like counties in US states.)
• It operates under a written Constitution, rather than an unwritten or partially-wrtten collection of basic law (like the UK has)
• It is a Republic, not a Monarchy (unlike the UK which is a monarchy even though it is also a democracy)
• It is a Representative democracy rather than a direct democracy, at its Federal and in most cases at lower levels (same as UK)
• It is a Democracy rather than a dictatorship. We The People (supposedly) have a voice and a fairly-run, democratic vote, in deciding who represents us.

Leaving any of that out is at best, ignorant point-missing. Usually it is deliberate agitprop.

The sky isn't blue, it's where birds fly. What you are saying is every bit as nonsensical and more dangerous.

Just another facet of post 'Citizens United' USA

[elwinc]

The Supreme Court's 'Citizens United' decision makes it possible for billionaires to pour unimaginable amounts of money into each election cycle. Some of thse billionaires lean right, like the Koch brothers, and some don't like Google's owners. Personally I would like to see Congress pass laws reversing 'Citizens United,' but until that happy day, we're kind of on the sidelines as the big players battle it out.

Re:Just another facet of post 'Citizens United' US

[ShanghaiBill]

Some of thse billionaires lean right, like the Koch brothers, and some don't like Google's owners.

Google's owners lean right, but talk left. Like many other tech companies, they donate to liberal advocacy groups, while using tax shelters to shift their profits overseas. They are all for big liberal government programs as long as some else pays for them. The only difference between Google's owners and the Koch brothers, is that with Google you get an extra layer of hypocrisy.

Google Can And Should Be Blamed

[Bob9113]

Google can't be blamed for this: one of its jobs is to lobby for laws that benefit its shareholders,

Yes, they can, and should, be blamed for this. Pro-social corporations should be rewarded for their behavior. Anti-social corporations should be punished. This is a pretty basic part of free market theory and the power of the purse. Stop repeating this sociopath-loving dogma as though it had any relation to healthy free market economics. Public backlash against despotic corporations is a very important correcting force in the free market.

Re:What the hell is this article?

[ranton]

You either let people keep what they build or you society will go backwards.

Any absolute statement about topics like government or economics are almost guaranteed to be absurd (notice I said almost guaranteed).

Free market capitalism is great. It has created the most powerful economies the world has ever known. Even state run economies have only been successful when they take full advantage of global free market capitalism.

But capitalism still needs to be kept in check. You can't just take advantage of its benefits and ignore the perils. Nothing is free. Capitalism is used because it is in the best interests of society, not to benefit only the best and brightest. When situations arise that are no longer in society's best interests, it is our responsibility to react. We have had to break up other monopolies in the past to keep competition strong, and we will have to do it many times in the future.

Breaking up Standard Oil and Bell Systems did not collapse capitalism, so I really doubt that breaking up or nationalizing a few tech companies will destroy it either.

(note I am not commenting on whether anything needs to be done about Google or Facebook, just that saying we should do nothing no matter what is a silly argument)