Slashdot Mirror


Investors Ask How Much Google Spends On Lobbying

Taco Cowboy writes: It has been estimated that Google has spent over $60 million on lobbying in Washington D.C. this year alone, and that figure does not include the money that Google gives to various trade organizations and "third party" groups. According to CNN: "On its website, Google lists 43 trade associations that it belongs to, such as the Ad Council and National Cyber Security Alliance, although it says that is a 'representative listing' and Google doesn't indicate how much money it gives these organizations. Google also has links to over 100 third-party groups like the AARP, Heritage Foundation and iKeepSafe that it 'provides support to.'" A group of Google investors are demanding that Google owns up to what they spend on and how much, and their push stems from one thing, and that thing is mainly connected to political correctness. It's public knowledge that Google contributes to the US Chamber of Commerce, and to some quarters, "the Chamber" is suffering from "Climate Change Denial Symptom" and they are doing their best to cut off any funding to "the Chamber" from Google.

81 comments

  1. A group of Google investors by OutOnARock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When you need your investors to show you how to "do no evil" , wouldn't that mean it doesn't apply any longer?

    1. Re:A group of Google investors by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, everyone knows Google is a bastion of right-wing lobbying and giving. Why, you can just look at all their strictly traditional holiday search page images and their complete lack of focus on left-wing causes in their news releases, promotional materials and spending.

      Good thing we have groups like these "investors" who are concerned not that they're making money, but that Google isn't contributing anything to any group which may in some way not agree with progressives to keep Google "correct" politically.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    2. Re:A group of Google investors by countSudoku() · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised that Google would stoop to involvement in what appears to be a giant system of bribery for favorable government action and attention.

      Neither Democrabs or Repukelicants are willing to seriously abolish what appears to be a illegal system of money worship that circumvents ordinary citizens ability to ask similar favors of our government. And that fucking does NOT rock, bros.

      --
      This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
    3. Re:A group of Google investors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ugh, shut up with that. They got rid of that slogan ever since they became publicly traded, which was a long time ago.

    4. Re:A group of Google investors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make lobbying sound as bad as SEO.

    5. Re:A group of Google investors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Google once did a special graphic for July 4th which proves their racists that hate us. As several studies have proven, by the end of the century somewhere between 250 million and 2 billion people are going to die because of climate change. That is the real reason Google and the rest of these corporations support climate change.

    6. Re:A group of Google investors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > for July 4th

      That is disgusting. By doing that, they're supporting slavery and racism. That is what that date represents. It honors the Republicans and others that love what the US has done and is currently doing to destroy the world. Google truly is a Republican-ruled corporation now.

    7. Re:A group of Google investors by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      When you need your investors to show you how to "do no evil" , wouldn't that mean it doesn't apply any longer?

      Google doesn't get to exist in a system where votes aren't for sale. Perhaps they should just allow the truly psychopathic to buy all the influence? That would be "less Evil", right? Hrmmm?

      Eric Schmidt's debate with Peter Thiel actually goes into some of this strategy a bit, if you want to find out fer reals. I think he probably even said too much, but it's out there.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    8. Re:A group of Google investors by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 1

      The Koch brothers have spent hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying and received tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks and corporate welfare as a result

      If you consider that the Kochs received close to a hundred to one return on investment, then Google would be stupid NOT to spend the money in a similar effort

      B'sides, they just might convince some of the Luddites that science actually works

      --
      Wherever You Go, There You Are
    9. Re:A group of Google investors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Derepubilcrats... It works in so many ways.

    10. Re:A group of Google investors by Bengie · · Score: 1

      You do realize that anytime you call up your representative, you're lobbying, right? Voting is a form of indirect lobbying. Essentially, attempting to affect how politicians think is lobbying.

    11. Re:A group of Google investors by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      They never had this slogan to begin with. It was "don't be evil" not "do no evil".
      And even in the early days, the scope of this slogan was quite limited. It was a business strategy along the lines of "treat our users correctly so that they want to stay with us rather than head to our competitors as soon as they can". It never was the irrealistic ideal people make it to be.

  2. not supporting deniers is simply "PC"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice troll you snuck in there Taco Cowboy.

    1. Re:not supporting deniers is simply "PC"? by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 2

      Hey, don't get in the way of Taco Cowboy's Libertarian leanings, 'cause he is a true believer that government can't do anything right

      I am just waiting to see evidence of a private company discovering a way to profit by NOT turning the world into an unlivable cesspool

      --
      Wherever You Go, There You Are
    2. Re: not supporting deniers is simply "PC"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, you mean other than the millions of private businesses and thousands of years of them existing, all while the Earth is still livable?

      You stupid motherfucker.

    3. Re: not supporting deniers is simply "PC"? by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 1

      Sure, and those companies operate under supervision of laws that make those things possible

      Look at water rights for example. British common law developed due to competitive use of water by different groups, agricultural, industrial and domestic. As a result the laws regulated how each land owner could affect the water running through their property. This is a very effective form of government control and is the model for water law that is followed in the US

      On the other hand Spanish water law had a top-down approach where the people upstream could have greater control over the water and either not let it flow through or pollute what left their property. This has proven unworkable and Spain has gone through major reforms to modernize their water laws

      Government control keeps companies from abusing each other, the public and the environment. That is why the Earth is still liveable and not a cesspool

      --
      Wherever You Go, There You Are
    4. Re: not supporting deniers is simply "PC"? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Government control keeps companies from abusing each other, the public and the environment

      Blasphemy. Adam Smith's Invisible Hand is turning in its grave.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  3. AARP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The AARP suffers from 'looming financial apocalypse because of your healthcare costs" denial. So maybe that's what we should be targeting here.

  4. Investors have little rights by mitgib · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Unless you are a class b share holder, forget about forcing Google to do anything, and most class b stock is in founder hands and does not trade

    --
    Being a spelling & grammar Nazi is a sign you do not poses the intelligence to contribute to the conversation
    1. Re:Investors have little rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Google is spewing money at these CONservatives that hate us and want us to die. Killing us is pretty serious business. The Chamber desires to create massive destruction through climate change. The UN estimated that over a billion people could die from the Republican's plans. Google certainly must answer for supporting the next Holocaust. That is what they are doing.

    2. Re:Investors have little rights by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      But Google is spewing money at these CONservatives that hate us and want us to die. Killing us is pretty serious business. The Chamber desires to create massive destruction through climate change.

      You misread the summary. The chamber is favor of stopping climate change. Other people (I don't know who) want to defund it because of that.

      Frankly I didn't realize how many groups Google donates to. I knew they did a lot, but they are prolific.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Investors have little rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misread the summary. The chamber is favor of stopping climate change. Other people (I don't know who) want to defund it because of that.

      No, he read it right: Chamber of Commerce resists action to limit or mitigate climate change. They resist the idea that climate change has human causes.
      http://blog.ucsusa.org/who-stands-with-the-u-s-chamber-of-commerce-on-climate-change-new-data-says-few-still-788

    4. Re:Investors have little rights by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I don't know why you are linking to blogs, but you can read the Chamber of Commerce statements on the matter. They clearly favor comprehensive climate change legislation to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re: Investors have little rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but they evilly favor not destroying the economy in the process, which appears to be the objective of the glorious progressives.

    6. Re: Investors have little rights by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 1

      Recognizing the actual costs and not just sweeping them under the rug for the rest of us to take care of is not 'progressive', it used to be called doing business

      Too many business 'leaders' think that shirking your costs off onto a sucker is the way to behave, I call is carny hucksterism and it is doomed to fail in the long haul

      --
      Wherever You Go, There You Are
    7. Re:Investors have little rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, they told my Rotary club that they could not comp us more than 50 gmail for domains accounts. :)

  5. Bribery by labnet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, Google could add a lot of value here.
    They could create a vote buying system, much like their reverse auction ad bid system.

    Have each senator put up the issues they are happy swing vote on and then have all the interest groups bid away.
    It's probably the next logical step in what is effectively now a bribe based system of legislation.

    --
    46137
    1. Re:Bribery by lgw · · Score: 1

      Oh, you mean like this system for India (which didn't need Google to create it).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Bribery by uhuru_meditation · · Score: 1

      Actually, Google could add a lot of value here. They could create a vote buying system, much like their reverse auction ad bid system.

      Ahhh..yes - a Google Bank you mean, right?

    3. Re:Bribery by chihowa · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not at all. That's some populist nonsense that's supposed to end bribery. It's no wonder Google had no hand in it.

      What Google needs to make is a system that streamlines bribery, synergizing capitalism and Web 3.0.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    4. Re:Bribery by Required+Snark · · Score: 1
      The US Chamber of Commerce is pro bribery.

      The Chamber is not overtly taking a pro-bribery position. Rather, its lobbying blitz couches the proposed changes as tune-ups, a few safeguards needed to protect against overzealous prosecutors.

      "Our proposals are aimed at preserving existing law enforcement tools so that the government can pursue the bad actors while ensuring that the good actors have clarity and more certainty under the law, which is clearly lacking today," said Harold Kim, a senior vice president at the Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform, in a statement to The Huffington Post.

      But the Chamber's list of demands boils down to this: It wants four loopholes that companies could use to escape criminal liability -- and it wants the government to make a clearer demarcation between foreign officials they are not allowed to bribe and those they are.

      This might be related to the fact that Chamber board members we in companies involved in bribery scandals when they were advocating these changes.

      The Institute for Legal Reform has been leading a powerful and unprecedented lobbying campaign to persuade Congress to rewrite key provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a 35-year-old statute that criminalizes bribes to foreign officials, on the grounds that prosecutors have been enforcing it too aggressively.

      In a letter to the Chamber released Tuesday, Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) -- the ranking Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee, respectively -- describe how committee staff looked through the institute's tax filings and found that 14 of the group's 55 board members between 2007 and 2010 "were affiliated with companies that were reportedly under investigation for violations or had settled allegations that they violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act."

      We're not talking chump change here.

      The Huffington Post calculated last year that a mere eight members of the Chamber -- not all board members of its legal reform arm -- had altogether paid nearly $1 billion resolving FCPA charges in the last seven years.

      So I would assume that the next step would be to legalize bribes in the US. We have it effectively anyway, so why keep the pretense that "all people are created equal". Remember that "corporations are people" and "some animals are more equal then others".

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
  6. Not very much then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $60m is peanuts to what the likes of esso pays

    1. Re:Not very much then by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Yep, it wasn't that long ago that business people were calling Google naive for not spending money on propagandists...err..lobbyists.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  7. Investors ask how much /. Media paid for Malware by Khyber · · Score: 4, Insightful
    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  8. Another productive and enlightening /. thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Inspired the type of elevated discourse once championed by this late gentleman.

  9. "Political correctness"?!? Good God! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously, has this term devolved to the point where it means promoting ANY idea that could be loosely considered left-leaning by the right wing fringe?

    We're talking climate change. It's not an agenda--it's just science, it's neutral. If your policies stem from actively avoiding scientific data, your policies aren't going to be very good. Claiming that science has a leftist bias basically implies that there's no conservative way to deal with reality, and that's simply untrue.

    And even IF we were talking about a liberal agenda, like, I dunno, single-payer healthcare or something... politically correct? Really? That's not the right term at all. Politically correct is about talking politely, using respectful terms for people, so that political discourse can happen without the discussion devolving into name-calling. Since the beginning, it's been a bit of a conservative boogeyman, some sort of proto-government-censorship (different only in that the government doesn't, you know, actually censor anything). To some degree, the demonization of the concept worked. People now no longer seem to spend much time before spouting an epithet or three, and political conversation goes nowhere fast.

    So you're saying supporting policies that are informed by sound science is... er, politeness. No, really, maybe you should keep the political correctness boogeyman and the climate change boogeyman in separate corners, never to mingle again.

    1. Re:"Political correctness"?!? Good God! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actively avoiding scientific data like that from the Magellan project?

    2. Re:"Political correctness"?!? Good God! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actively avoiding scientific data like that from the Magellan project?

      Good point: You have to understand the data before you can use it. The deniers have actually latched on to some of the data, like the Magellan project, because they think it disproves the rest of the data, when actually, all of the data is good, it just describes different things, with different amounts of error. So you're right, they're only avoiding an understanding of the data, not the data itself.

  10. Oh please U.S. Chamber of Commerce ? by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    What is this another case of beat up random people that you can because you can't get the ones you want ?

    http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/de...

    There you go, as of 2011 China is at 27% of the emissions and still growing in both percentage and absolute amount.

    Maybe these people need to disinvest in China and stop buying Chinese products ? Or maybe they just have some sort of a grudge they are pursuing by other means.

    1. Re:Oh please U.S. Chamber of Commerce ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What is this another case of beat up random people that you can because you can't get the ones you want ?

      http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/de...

      There you go, as of 2011 China is at 27% of the emissions and still growing in both percentage and absolute amount.

      Maybe these people need to disinvest in China and stop buying Chinese products ? Or maybe they just have some sort of a grudge they are pursuing by other means.

      Can't do that. China is, at this point, decades ahead of the US in renewable energy tech. There's no way we can address climate change in any reasonable timeframe without using Chinese products, at least in the near term. I don't know if China's huge investment in renewable tech is related to the fact that they don't have a Chamber of Commerce over there, I'll leave that for you to consider.

    2. Re:Oh please U.S. Chamber of Commerce ? by Crashmarik · · Score: 1, Funny

      http://imgur.com/dXHWhNr

      Do you see the red in that picture ? That's the CO2 mankind has added to the atmosphere. Color me unworried.

    3. Re:Oh please U.S. Chamber of Commerce ? by cavreader · · Score: 1

      "decades ahead of the US in renewable energy tech" Can you source this grandiose claim? The only Chinese renewable energy advances were flooding the market with cheap solar panels which were copies of the solar panels designed and manufactured in the US. I am not sure this puts China a decade ahead of the US.

    4. Re: Oh please U.S. Chamber of Commerce ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, you seriously believe that Chinese can only copy and not innovate, except if they come to MIT? You have been a victim of propaganda.

    5. Re:Oh please U.S. Chamber of Commerce ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      http://imgur.com/dXHWhNr

      Do you see the red in that picture ? That's the CO2 mankind has added to the atmosphere. Color me unworried.

      What an excellent standard for whether something is a problem! So, if, for example, the ocean levels rose 30 meters, inundating nearly every coastal city and displacing a majority of the human population, I could whip up a chart showing that the volume of water we added to the oceans is really actually just a tiny, barely noticeable red sliver compared to the rest of the water on the planet, and therefore my fellow refugees and I have nothing at all to worry about--almost as if it's not happening at all!

    6. Re: Oh please U.S. Chamber of Commerce ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, you seriously believe that Chinese can only copy and not innovate, except if they come to MIT? You have been a victim of propaganda.

      No shit. If you claim the US isn't #1 in every conceivable metric, YOU'RE the one making grandiose claims!

    7. Re:Oh please U.S. Chamber of Commerce ? by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      18 years 5 months no warming

      https://wattsupwiththat.files....

      CO2 above the worst case scenario from the IPCC
      Warming Below the best case scenario. from the IPCC

      I applaud your ability to get hysterical and while still believing people who are repeatedly wrong.

    8. Re: Oh please U.S. Chamber of Commerce ? by cavreader · · Score: 1

      If they go to MIT or any other University or College a sizable percentage stay in the US to work. And if China has developed some super cool gizmo that puts them 10 years ahead of the US in developing new technologies they are sure keeping quite about it. Maybe they are sitting on a warp drive, anti-gravity generator, an inertial dampener system, or maybe a cure for cancer?
      By the way I go to China on business about 3 times a year and the people I meet there are very friendly and courteous unlike the pricks I run into in Europe now and then. For some reason everyone seems to think the President of the US calls me personally asking for advice on government policies.

    9. Re:Oh please U.S. Chamber of Commerce ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I applaud your ability to get hysterical and while still believing people who are repeatedly wrong.

      Yours isn't so bad yourself.

    10. Re:Oh please U.S. Chamber of Commerce ? by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      LOL 45 years since earthday 1 call me when your side gets 1 right.

      Of course I am more than one up on you. I am not cheering for disasters.

    11. Re:Oh please U.S. Chamber of Commerce ? by PatientZero · · Score: 3, Informative

      The surface temperature is still warming, just less so. Instead, the energy is being absorbed by the oceans. A warmer ocean still melts sea ice and increases evaporation--another greenhouse gas. The energy imbalance is still there, and the heat must go somewhere. Just because WUWT ignores that basic fact of physics and the data from the oceans doesn't change it.

      --
      Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
      I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
    12. Re:Oh please U.S. Chamber of Commerce ? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      That makes China drastically more efficient than the USA, since they have over 4 times as many people. Once the USA cuts it's emissions to 1/3 of the current level then maybe China will be the issue.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    13. Re:Oh please U.S. Chamber of Commerce ? by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      If you are seriously worried about CO2 China is the issue now. It's CO2 output is larger than the U.S. and will soon be larger than the combined output of the U.S. and the E.U. So the question is are you about the climate or are you just a tool of a cause you don't understand ?

    14. Re:Oh please U.S. Chamber of Commerce ? by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      Yeah why worry about tipping a balanced system. I mean, I look outside and I can't even see any CO2 at all! And did you know that it snowed at my house this past winter?! The scientists probably just made up CO2 so they can buy yachts and gold teeth.

    15. Re:Oh please U.S. Chamber of Commerce ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you nuts? That image should be at least half red, representing a 100% increase since pre industrial times. Are you saying that CO2 was 400ppm then or that it's not 400 ppm now? Either way, you're batshit, but since you're committed to being batshit you may as well disclose what kind of batshit you are.

    16. Re:Oh please U.S. Chamber of Commerce ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, most deniers are a flavor of the month club--I'm glad to have met a True Believer who doesn't change with the fashions.

      Long after most deniers have abandoned the Great Thermometer Conspiracy, you're still there. Hell, most deniers are two steps or more beyond that by now. Maybe ten years ago, they moved to believing warming is happening but humans aren't doing it (solar cycles, etc), then a little later (briefly) to warming is beneficial (the great Canadian agriculture boom!), and most are now on the global warming is happening, human caused, and harmful, but doing something about it is worse.

      I'm glad to know that I'll never hear such silly arguments from you. It's a simple "temperatures aren't going up, your thermometers are lying to you," and it always will be. And frankly, the consistency is refreshing. It's idiotic, of course, but refreshing.

    17. Re: Oh please U.S. Chamber of Commerce ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if China has developed some super cool gizmo that puts them 10 years ahead of the US in developing new technologies they are sure keeping quite about it.

      It ain't gizmos, it's industrial capacity. If China wants to make a shit-ton of solar panels, or wind turbines, production starts this afternoon. The capacity is already there, because they invested last decade. If the US wants to do the same thing, they create the tax incentives, wait for the venture capital to bite, then the site for the future factory is decided on, at best about three years after the US decided to make this happen. A year or so later, you've got it working on a very small scale. In another ten, you've got something on a decent scale, and that's all assuming there's no political grandstanding, corruption, or random snafus along the way to slow things down.

      China is decades ahead of the US simply because they can make the shit and we can't. So typical of Americans to think in terms only of intellectual property, and forget the basics.

    18. Re:Oh please U.S. Chamber of Commerce ? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      China exports. The more fair measure of how much a country contributes is to measure consumption. And in that, China is so far behind the US that it doesn't matter. The CO2 they put in the air is for US companies for products on US shelves. If they stopped tomorrow, Apple et. al. would move to Africa or wherever else allows them to pollute with impunity.

    19. Re: Oh please U.S. Chamber of Commerce ? by cavreader · · Score: 1

      So you are saying the US only produces intellectual property that translates to new products of all sorts and China just builds the products? And what are "typical" Americans? There is not one single country on the planet as diverse in race, culture, or religion as the US population. The US ranks in the top 3 manufactures in the world depending on how the figures are calculated. China is increasingly having to compete against other nations in South East Asia. China's economy has been built on low labor costs and currency manipulations which help lower the prices on their exports. Now there are other countries that can offer the same low labor cost and they are attracting manufacturers. In order for China to continue growing they need to establish a healthy domestic economy so they are not totally dependent on their exports. To do this the workers need to make more money to spend domestically and this is causing a rise in the labor costs China has had to depend on to make their exports attractive.

  11. It pretty much doesn't damn well matter. by tlambert · · Score: 2

    It pretty much doesn't damn well matter. The investors can want whatever they want, and it won't matter.

    Between Sergey, Larry, and Eric, they control more than 50% of the voting stock, and therefore they control the board, and the investors can go pound sand for all of the real fiscal influence they have on the company. The can more or less just shut up and take their profits on the rise of the non-voting stock price, or they can sell their stock and let someone else take the profits.

    PS: I notice no one has mentioned the fact that a lot of the charitable organizations they are giving to are 501(c)(3)'s, and they represent matching contributions for contributions by employees:

    "Google will match employee donations from a minimum gift of $50 up to $6,000 per donor per year."

    https://doublethedonation.com/...

    1. Re:It pretty much doesn't damn well matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you should look into the outcome of abuse of Hollinger Inc.'s shareholders by Conrad Black. Sure, the ultimate outcome was not great for shareholders, but then, most of them were in the position of Google's shareholders: unable to influence the controlling mind. (It is important to note that Black was being especially abusive, but that he also thought more or less as you do: "they can go pound sand". No.)

  12. Climate change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahh, there's my daily Climate Change (TM) article. I was starting to think you'd forgotten.

  13. Conscientious objectors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... A group of Google investors are demanding that Google owns up to what they spend on and how much,

    Are these investors demanding the same rules apply to their other investments: Apple, microsoft, Oracle? No, I don''t know if these investors own other tech-co shares, but that is what investors tend to do. So I find it suspicious they are forcing political correctness rules on only one company. All the more so, when the goal is "to cut off any funding to 'the Chamber'". Or maybe, only Google is banned from funding 'the chamber'.

  14. Re:Investors ask how much /. Media paid for Malwar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're interested in helping to contact DHI Group Inc. for SF's potential violation of their Code of Ethics, gathering evidence, and sending the message to the greater mirroring community that wrapping FOSS projects in malware without the creator's consent is unacceptable, there is a board set up at 8chan.net (an open-source Freedom-respecting imageboard) to help coordinate efforts, evidence, and discussion. Though it is still in its infancy, we are in need of people who care about the public image of FOSS and want to see Sourceforge and other responsible parties held accountable beyond a temporary PR fiasco.

    https://8ch.net/sourcefraud/

    8chan's privacy policy can be found here:

    https://8ch.net/privacy.pdf

    If you have questions about 8chan in general, please read the FAQ.

    https://8ch.net/faq.html

    Disclosure: I am not financially invested in 8chan.net, nor am I making any money off of sharing this board. Please enable your Adblocker before visiting, by all means.

  15. Conrad Black was convicted of fraud. by tlambert · · Score: 2

    Conrad Black was convicted of fraud. The situation with Google is entirely different.

    They have a contract with their employees for matching charitable contributions. This is a significant employee benefit.

    It's asinine to insist that all of Google's employees be Social Democrats, Green Party, or any other single political block. They are a diverse group, and they will support a diverse set of causes, as diverse groups of people do.

    Sergey, Larry, and Eric have been reasonable custodians of their company in an environment where, had it been possible for them to do so, an activist investor like a Carl Icahn, T. Boone Pickens, Jr., or like Starboard Value LP had taken over the entire Darden board, and basically killed Olive Garden (U.S. same-store sales slid 1.3% last quarter).

    Activist investors are more generally Gordon Gecko's than they are people who want to help grow the business. It's pretty clear that Starboard fully intends to spin off the Darden group Real Estate holding as a separate liquidation, which will increase the per-store flooring costs. This was in fact a key point of their presentations to shareholders: take short term profit for long term loss (but by then you've sold out to some sucker who is only looking at quarter over quarter profits, one quarter deep).

    God help Google if someone like Icahn or Einhorn gets his hooks as deeply into Google as both of them have gotten their hooks into Apple.

    1. Re:Conrad Black was convicted of fraud. by Required+Snark · · Score: 1
      Have you ever worked for a politically connected US corporation? From your comments I assume not.

      Every company has a PAC. Once you get to a certain level you had better be giving money to that PAC, or you are not a "team player". Good luck moving up in the hierarchy, or even keeping your job, if you don't.

      I was in a smallish aerospace company (by now they've pass $1 billion in sales, which is not big in that industry), and I saw this first hand.

      Grow up. There's no room for honest dissent in corporate culture. It's a subset of the reality that there's no room for honestly in corporate culture.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    2. Re:Conrad Black was convicted of fraud. by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Have you ever worked for a politically connected US corporation? From your comments I assume not.

      Every company has a PAC. Once you get to a certain level you had better be giving money to that PAC, or you are not a "team player". Good luck moving up in the hierarchy, or even keeping your job, if you don't.

      I was in a smallish aerospace company (by now they've pass $1 billion in sales, which is not big in that industry), and I saw this first hand.

      Grow up. There's no room for honest dissent in corporate culture. It's a subset of the reality that there's no room for honestly in corporate culture.

      This does not mesh with my experience working at:

      - Novell
      - Artisoft
      - IBM (after they bought our startup)
      - Apple
      - Google

      Perhaps the aerospace industry is more corrupt?

      Both Google and Apple had *very active* PACs, and there was no consequence to not voting Democrat when Steve Jobs urged you to do so, or not contributing to Google's NETPAC when the executives urged you to do so.

      Google's pretty much all over the map on who they contribute to, and the article is full of crap, pretty much it all gets disclosed:

      http://www.google.com/publicpo...

    3. Re:Conrad Black was convicted of fraud. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the aerospace industry is more corrupt?

      To be fair, it's probably not as corrupt as the oil industry.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  16. Why single out Google? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    How much do other companies give, when you add it all up?

    I know Microsoft gives to so-called "think tanks" to scientifically prove their propaganda is true.

    Does Microsoft use it's money, and influence, to have smear campaigns published?

    When I see Google singled out like this, I suspect a smear campaign, rather than a neutral party trying to inform the public.

    1. Re:Why single out Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because this article is about Google. Stay on topic.

  17. Google is a lobbying group by plopez · · Score: 1

    That sells marketing information and sort sometimes produces software. So totally Web 2.0.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  18. Santa here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When I see Google singled out like this, I suspect a smear campaign, rather than a neutral party trying to inform the public.

    This is Santa Claus, I'm making a list and checking it twice. Right now we're checking Google. Because 'G' comes before 'I' and 'M'. Apple is getting a lump of coal for Q4'15.

  19. your political fangs are showing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    overlords u have missed the objective again..

  20. Hypocrisy by Framboise · · Score: 1

    So big companies corrupt politicians and organisations like FIFA, and nobody complains. Corruption flourishes because some entities propose money to people unable to say no. Both sides should be investigated by justice, but curiously little is done against big companies.

  21. Question for Google & AdCouncil... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious ads: See 2-10 next)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
    16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all!

    APK

    P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    AdBlock's SLOWER than hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...

    AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    For the BEST hosts file?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    ... apk

  22. Re:Now we KNOW what this is REALLY about... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    It's all about the climate change nutballs trying to stop ANYONE that disagrees with them. Heck they already want climate change deniers put to death.

    I'm guessing you don't have any citations for that?

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  23. Fascism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've unfortunately sold our souls to Google as the world slips into a global fascist community; maybe its time we assert our freedoms and refuse to buy into all the crap.

  24. Magellan by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    Actively avoiding scientific data like that from the Magellan project?

    ?

    Two of the top ten hits suggests that this refers to a spacecraft that orbited Venus, so I assume that this is some reference to the Venus greenhouse effect?

    https://www.google.com/search?...

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  25. Wicked hard problem by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    What is this another case of beat up random people that you can because you can't get the ones you want ? http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/de... There you go, as of 2011 China is at 27% of the emissions and still growing in both percentage and absolute amount. Maybe these people need to disinvest in China and stop buying Chinese products ? Or maybe they just have some sort of a grudge they are pursuing by other means.

    (I will point out that this large number is only because China has such a large population. In terms of emission per person, USA beats them hands down)

    Can't do that. China is, at this point, decades ahead of the US in renewable energy tech. There's no way we can address climate change in any reasonable timeframe without using Chinese products, at least in the near term. I don't know if China's huge investment in renewable tech is related to the fact that they don't have a Chamber of Commerce over there, I'll leave that for you to consider.

    That is why climate change is a wicked hard problem: you can't solve it on your own-- it has to be a collaborative solution involving multiple countries.

    And that, in turn, is why some people would rather deny that the problem exists rather than find a way to solve it: they have an ideology that says the US should never work in collaboration with other nations, not ever, not for any purpose. They don't have any mechanism in their ideology to solve the problem, so the only choice is to deny it exists.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com