[_audakel]

I'm not sure how this is very different than Goldman saches both hiring former members of the SEC and having many of its employees go on to fill top financial regulatory positions in government. People are not up in arms about that. I am sure other top banks in Europe do similar things ie have people they can influence in top positions or hire them.

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

[hkmurakami]

>It is mostly likely google is the nrw kid on the block trying this sort of thing

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.

[greenyoda]

"Just look at how much flak big tech gets vs big banks with respect to gender equality and inclusivity"

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).

[rpgmaker]

> 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.

People are just used to it, it's not that they are good at hiding it. They just don't care about hiding it.

[ENGNR]

Finance has a pretty bad reputation these days though, saying finance is corrupt isn't exactly news worthy, which is why Hillary Clinton is copping so much flak for having a close relationship with Goldman Sachs. If it was Google instead I don't think it'd be as big an issue

[sharemywin]

It's there but like you say no one makes a big deal of it.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/03/21/clinton-emails-s...

[quanticle]

>People are not up in arms about that.

They absolutely are. Goldman Sachs has earned the derisive nickname "Government Sachs" for a reason.

[rdtsc]

> I'm not sure how this is very different than Goldman saches both hiring former members of the SEC and having many of its employees go on to fill top

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.

[dredmorbius]

It's no different.

People are up in arms over this.

[azakai]

The difference is scale. As the article says,

> 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.

[Doctor_Fegg]

> I'm not sure how this is very different than Goldman saches

To be fair, that's not a great commendation.