Eric Schmidt Working Directly with Clinton Campaign

Posted by thisisdallas on Monday October 31, 2016 @11:00AM
from the self-post dept.

This email from Shmidt recommends the Clinton campaign hire "low paid permanent employees". He also states, "Key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them."

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/37262#efmAC9AE0AZBAZdA3DA4n

( 7 comments | 16 points | on HN )

Re:Eric Schmidt Working Directly with Clinton Campaign by jstevens2357 on Monday October 31, 2016 @11:38AM (#12837738)

Imagine Bezos, Zuckerberg, Cook or Nadella sending an email like this.

This is purely about monopoly maintenance. Google has everything to lose if Clinton appoints enforcement-oriented antitrust officials. Also relevant: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-google-is-transf...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-u-s-antitrust-probe-o...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Eric Schmidt Working Directly with Clinton Campaign by gragas on Monday October 31, 2016 @11:15AM (#12837484)

>"Key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them."

That is extremely disturbing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Eric Schmidt Working Directly with Clinton Campaign by jacquesm on Monday October 31, 2016 @11:18AM (#12837505)

What are the odds of there being 'a single record for a user that aggregates all that is known about them' for Google services?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Eric Schmidt Working Directly with Clinton Campaign by wh0rth on Monday October 31, 2016 @11:14AM (#12837467)

Not really surprised. Hasn't he been one of the campaigns biggest donors?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Eric Schmidt Working Directly with Clinton Campaign by ericzawo on Monday October 31, 2016 @01:42PM (#12839077)

Pretty sure he alluded to something like this in The New Digital Age.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Eric Schmidt Working Directly with Clinton Campaign by piotrjurkiewicz on Monday October 31, 2016 @12:09PM (#12838125)

This submission has been silently hidden from the list on HN main page (despite it wasn't flagged!). I checked the first 6 pages and it's not visible there.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Eric Schmidt Working Directly with Clinton Campaign by dang on Tuesday November 01, 2016 @09:19AM (#12845426)

Of course users flagged it. Boring though it may be, that's usually the explanation. The [flagged] annotation shows up when the flags cross a high threshold. Posts without URLs also get a standard penalty.

Cherry-picking a single detail from a complex body of information does not make for a good HN post, because it's too editorialized: the one who cherry-picks that detail essentially determines the story for everyone else. When the subject is political, multiply this paragraph by 10x; when it's inflammatory, by another 10x.

This and other comments of yours use phrases like "silently hidden" which suggest manipulation of the site for political ends, but we don't do that, and everything that happened to this post and its follow-ups (12840284, 12844254) was completely standard. They're just not good posts for HN, and as they get more meta (e.g. "why was my post about why was my post flagged flagged"?), they get worse and worse.

[ Parent | on HN ]