Comment by bun_at_work
8 years ago
Yes - you're right. I already understood that, but thanks for the patronizing comment that actually side-steps any point about how Google is not the company fighting mosquitos in California.
Google is busy trying to maximize advertising profits.
Verily is focused in Life Sciences.
Different companies, with different goals. Verily isn't trying to maximize advertising profits for Alphabet.
And you're side-stepping the point that many people are making here, which is that being an Alphabet subsidiary means that they're subsidized by Google's ad business. It's concerning that massive public health projects -- of the sort that used to be undertaken largely by governments and non-profit NGOs -- are now undertaken by a company that got rich off advertising and the owners have decided to reinvest in such ventures. Ostensibly, if the US government goes out and decides to eliminate malaria, they are accountable to people for how they do this. As long as Verily is under the Alphabet umbrella, it's not even a private firm, it's a wholly owned subsidiary of Alphabet. They can write all the mission statements they want, so long as Google continues to provide advertising revenue in sufficient quantity to cover the losses of Alphabet's "other bets," the only accountability for what Verily does is to advertisers and the shareholders of an adtech firm.
> you're side-stepping the point that many people are making here, which is that being an Alphabet subsidiary means that they're subsidized by Google's ad business.
I'm not side-stepping that point. I literally conceded it multiple times.
> It's concerning that massive public health projects ... are undertaken by a company ...
You're concerned that a public health project is being undertaken by private industry...but what concern is there? What are you worried about? I'm happy to discuss that. I probably share concerns regarding the same thing.
However, if a private company invests in public health, I tend to see that as a good thing. I also agree that such private companies should be accountable. This necessitates government regulation on private companies. I am for that, to the extent that the company can still do things in the interest of the public.
However, if your point is actually that there is limited accountability for private companies working in the public interest (or their own interest), then why conflate Google and Verily? It doesn't make your point more or less valid and contributes to a fundamental misunderstanding of the context around a given issue.
If that's really your issue from the start, then just say you think these types of things should be done by entities which are held accountable to the public.
Nobody's _conflating_ Google and Verily. Verily is owned by a holding company that was formed for the express purpose of allowing Google's profits to subsidize projects that Google's founders want to pursue.
It's the ownership that matters. Ownership matters because that is where the decision making and control is. Verily is a 100% owned subsidiary. If Alphabet decided to amalgamate Google with Verily, could they? Can Alphabet pull money out of Verily? Can Alphabet decide to shut down Verily? Yes, in all cases. Who does Verily CEO report to? Your claim that it a separate, stand-alone company is false.