• Google Endorses TPP
    30 replies, posted
[url]https://publicpolicy.googleblog.com/2016/06/the-trans-pacific-partnership-step.html[/url] original article title: The Trans-Pacific Partnership: A Step Forward for the Internet [QUOTE]When we think about global trade, most of us imagine container ships navigating the Panama Canal and large multinational companies with warehouses around the world. But the Internet is upending this model and opening the door for the over three billion people already online to exchange goods, services, and ideas. Today, a small business can sell its products overseas with little more than an app or website. An artist, musician, or author can reach a global audience without needing a superstar agent. A small business on Bainbridge Island, Washington sells its marine parts to customers in 176 countries, and a unique performer like Lindsey Stirling cultivates a global audience with millions of views on YouTube. The Internet is profoundly changing the global economy -- democratizing who participates in trade, transforming the way traditional industries do business, and internationalizing the way people around the world connect. Today, information flows contribute more than the flow of physical goods to global economic growth. But Internet restrictions -- like censorship, site-blocking, and forced local storage of data -- threaten the Internet’s open architecture. This can seriously harm established businesses, startups trying to reach a global audience, and Internet users seeking to communicate and collaborate across national borders. Trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are beginning to recognize the Internet’s transformative impact on trade.[/QUOTE]
I thought there were provisions in TPP that threatened net neutrality. Something stinks.
[QUOTE=archangel125;50495632]I thought there were provisions in TPP that threatened net neutrality. Something stinks.[/QUOTE] doesn't help that there's been allegations that presidential candidate hillary clinton (who is pro TPP) and google have been working together to eliminate unfavorable search terms involving her.
Google what are you doing.
Seems like Google is trying to make the TPP look like a good thing for [I]us[/I] with this. No it will not. Yes, cheaper stuff from overseas and small businesses being able to easily sell their products overseas would be nice (if that is how it actually works) but I would rather have less copyright and censorship drama. They are making it look like those problems will get [I]better[/I] with the TPP, but how in the world will giving more control over copyright and what-not to big corporations help that?
Just shows Google is not infallible.
well that's retarded
Google for VP.
[QUOTE=Wii60;50495636]doesn't help that there's been allegations that presidential candidate hillary clinton (who is pro TPP) and google have been working together to eliminate unfavorable search terms involving her.[/QUOTE] Shes against TPP though?
[QUOTE=Saxon;50495680]Shes against TPP though?[/QUOTE] Hillary clinton flip flops on it alot [url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/05/hillary-clinton/hillary-clintons-revisionist-history-tpp/[/url] Did 45 speeches supporting TPP [url]http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/45-times-secretary-clinton-pushed-the-trade-bill-she-now-opposes/[/url] She recently re-did her book, removing the tpp part where she basically cheerleaded for it. [url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3635981/Hillary-deletes-emails-latest-edition-memoir-removes-cheerleading-controversial-Trans-Pacific-Partnership-trade-deal.html[/url]
[QUOTE=archangel125;50495632]I thought there were provisions in TPP that threatened net neutrality. Something stinks.[/QUOTE] Oh, Google change their stance on that in 2001.
[QUOTE=Wii60;50495636]doesn't help that there's been allegations that presidential candidate hillary clinton (who is pro TPP) and google have been working together to eliminate unfavorable search terms involving her.[/QUOTE] i referenced cathy durant from house of cards in a previous thread about hillary but if this allegation is true lmao
I would have expected no less from Google, the monopoly that so eagerly bowed down to the NSA a few years ago. [editline]11th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Saxon;50495680]Shes against TPP though?[/QUOTE] Hahahahaha! Of [i]course[/i] she does. Seriously? We're talking about Clinton here not Sanders.
Techically, Google just seems "comfortable" with the agreement, which just exports the US ways of doing things to other countries, Doesn't matter, it's still on really shaky ground on congress. Edit: Net Neutraility would still a thing, google would not endorse it if it was, Sanders is having a No-Vote of the TPP included in the Democratic Party Platform
In other news: Google is a for-profit business and the TPP will bring them profit (and probably lots of it)
For a second I thought it said TPB (the pirate bay) and I was shocked for a second before I learned how to actually read. Anyway, this is weird.
[QUOTE=Wii60;50495687]Hillary clinton flip flops on it alot [url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/05/hillary-clinton/hillary-clintons-revisionist-history-tpp/[/url] [/QUOTE] It looked like she flipped once, after her job being to secure trade deals like these were over. If it's something Obama wants do you really think the Secretary of State isn't going to try to sell it? Apparently she has voted against trade deals before so it's not like it would be unusual for her to maintain an anti-TPP stance.
[QUOTE=Wii60;50495636]doesn't help that there's been allegations that presidential candidate hillary clinton (who is pro TPP) and google have been working together to eliminate unfavorable search terms involving her.[/QUOTE] Was this conspiracy theory started by the same people who said that Facebook was censoring conservative opinions, by any chance?
This isn't really that surprising. I'm pretty sure Google would be able to escape a lot (more) [del]European[/del] [editline]edit[/editline]overseas taxes and avoid a lot of [del]European[/del] [editline]edit[/editline]overseas consumer protection and anti-cartel rules and regulations if TPP went through. I love how almost every single comment is slamming them hard :v: [editline]edit[/editline] I confused the potential free trade agreements again (since the acronyms are similar), but it's pretty much the same thing anyway.
[QUOTE=Tamschi;50498455]This isn't really that surprising. I'm pretty sure Google would be able to escape a lot (more) European taxes and avoid a lot of European consumer protection and anti-cartel rules and regulations if TPP went through. I love how almost every single comment is slamming them hard :v:[/QUOTE] Except this is the TPP, your thinking of the TTIP where it basically stalled, and is likely to not be completed.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50498474]Except this is the TPP, your thinking of the TTIP where it basically stalled, and is likely to not be completed.[/QUOTE] Right, I just noticed my mistake. Sorry about that.
[QUOTE=AJ10017;50495637]Google what are you doing.[/QUOTE] Trying to usher in the end of the free internet, apparently. [editline]11th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;50497556]Was this conspiracy theory started by the same people who said that Facebook was censoring conservative opinions, by any chance?[/QUOTE] Wasn't that confirmed though?
Yeah, that actually was confirmed.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50498534] Wasn't that confirmed though?[/QUOTE] Where at?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50498729]Where at?[/QUOTE] [url=http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006]Here[/url]. Google is your friend, folks. [editline]11th June 2016[/editline] And of course it's Raidyr who's asking. [editline]11th June 2016[/editline] Wait a minute, I kind of said something silly there. Google isn't your friend according to OP :v:
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50498534] Wasn't that confirmed though?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=BlindSniper17;50498544]Yeah, that actually was confirmed.[/QUOTE] It wasn't really like that. Gizmodo posted two articles ([url=http://gizmodo.com/want-to-know-what-facebook-really-thinks-of-journalists-1773916117?rev=1462295407082]one[/url] and [url=http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006]two[/url]) about Facebook's trending stories that the algorithm picked out- the first article said that Facebook has a method for determining what sources are considered reliable when the algorithm gathers information, and this was based on whether the news sites were accurate in their reporting or if they were one of those that frequently spread hoaxes and poorly vetted stories. In the second article, they interviewed some former contract workers who alleged they were instructed to suppress news from conservative sites, but this wasn't really corroborated by anyone else and really what seemed to be happening was some sites that could be considered conservative were discouraged as a reliable source to determine what's trending news from for the algorithm and later by the workers who would have to write a brief summary on those topics. But that had nothing to do with the ideological orientation, rather whether these sites were known to be accurate, again going back to what the first article was about. It's the same reason why on these trending algorithms you don't see them using usuncut, alternet, or occupydemocrats as the primary source. Unfortunately sometimes self-described conservative sites (and I don't mean Fox or bigger ones here but places like worldnetdaily) do traffic highly in posting stories of a dubious nature, for example the whole mess over Jade Helm conspiracy theories, Obama coming to take away your guns any moment now, FEMA carrying out Obama's plans of white genocide, or what ever random locale has suddenly been infiltrated by muslims trying to impose sharia law. Facebook isn't at fault for these sites shooting themselves in the foot by posting dumb shit like that. As for Clinton-Google conspiracies, our elections are apparently going to get screwed up because google's autocomplete fields favor Clinton or something like that and there's a study by some psychologist that says people could be convinced by that. Like most of these conspiracies there's more to it than that. [url]http://www.snopes.com/google-manipulate-hillary-clinton/[/url] [url]https://medium.com/@rhea/hillary-clintons-search-results-manipulated-by-sourcefed-not-google-3dd9a5c68ca1#.5evro5lss[/url]
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;50498995][URL="http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006"]Here[/URL]. Google is your friend, folks. [editline]11th June 2016[/editline] And of course it's Raidyr who's asking. [editline]11th June 2016[/editline] Wait a minute, I kind of said something silly there. Google isn't your friend according to OP :v:[/QUOTE] I googled it and got that which isn't really a confirmation. I was hoping someone else had a more solid source. And "of course" its me asking? I'd missed this story. I wanted more information about it. Don't be petulant.
"Don't be evil" "Do the right thing"
[QUOTE=Charades;50500337]"Don't be evil" "Do the right thing"[/QUOTE] Google has not lived up to that for quite some time. Not to say they are terrible, but they have become just another corporation.
[QUOTE=Wii60;50495687]Hillary clinton flip flops on it alot [url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/05/hillary-clinton/hillary-clintons-revisionist-history-tpp/[/url] Did 45 speeches supporting TPP [url]http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/45-times-secretary-clinton-pushed-the-trade-bill-she-now-opposes/[/url] She recently re-did her book, removing the tpp part where she basically cheerleaded for it. [url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3635981/Hillary-deletes-emails-latest-edition-memoir-removes-cheerleading-controversial-Trans-Pacific-Partnership-trade-deal.html[/url][/QUOTE] She hasn't flipped on it since the draft was finalized. She rescinded her support of it less than 48 hours after it was finalized. She hasn't spoken positively of it since. The "Hillary supports the TPP" thing confuses me, because it's incredibly similar to her perspective on CAFTA, which she fought against due to poor labor regulations. Maybe the TPP was initially a very positive bill for the US, and then over time it was whittled down and lost a lot of provisions that made it weaker? That's what it seems like to me - over time, she spoke less and less positively of it until she rescinded her support. I'm not convinced that she's in favor of the TPP, secretly or not. It seems to fit in to her position on free trade deals to me - she's raised the same concerns she's raised with many, many other free trade deals.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.