Google Employees Demand the End of Forced Arbitration Across the Tech Industry

On the heels of an employee-led protest against Google, a group of 35 Google employees is banding together to take it a step further and end the practice of forced arbitration across the entire tech…
Article word count: 339

HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18651540
Posted by rmason (karma: 19961)
Post stats: Points: 128 - Comments: 68 - 2018-12-10T22:05:04Z

\#HackerNews #across #arbitration #demand #employees #end #forced #google #industry #tech #the

---

Article content:



On the heels of an employee-led [1]protest against Google, a group of 35 Google employees is banding together to take it a step further and end the practice of forced arbitration across the entire tech industry.

Forced arbitration ensures workplace disputes are settled behind closed doors and without any right to an appeal. These types of agreements effectively prevent employees from suing companies. Following the walkout last month, [2]Google got rid of forced arbitration for sexual harassment and sexual assault claims, offering more transparency around those investigations and more. [3]Airbnb, eBay and [4]Facebook quickly followed suit.

However, optional arbitration at [5]Google is only granted for full-time employees, which does not include the [6]thousands of contract workers at the company. Now, a group of Google employees is demanding an end to forced arbitration, as it relates to any case of discrimination, across the entire industry.

As the employees note on Medium, arbitration is still forced for discrimination cases pertaining to race, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, age and ability. Additionally, employee contracts in the U.S. still have an arbitration waiver, the employees wrote.

“We have not heard of any plan to render these waivers null and void,” employees wrote on Medium. “Google operates in 52 countries where arbitration laws vary, and leadership has not addressed these variances. What should we expect?”

Moving forward, they’re asking other tech workers to join them in their fight to end forced arbitration for all forms of harassment and discrimination. They’re also calling on elected officials to support the Arbitration Fairness Act, as well as Restoring Justice for Workers Act.

“We are already engaging with multiple organizations and can help connect the dots through educational materials and organizing resources,” they wrote. “2019 must be the year to end a system of privatized justice that impacts over [7]60 million workers in the US alone.”

Google declined to comment, saying, “nothing more to share at this time” and linking to Google CEO Sundar Pichai’s [8]note to employees last month.

[9]Google contract workers demand better pay and benefits

[10]IFrame

References

Visible links
1. https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/08/google-walkout-organizers-response-sundar-pichai/
2. https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/08/google-walkout-organizers-response-sundar-pichai/
3. https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/12/airbnb-ends-forced-arbitration-days-after-google-facebook-did-the-same/
4. https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/12/airbnb-ends-forced-arbitration-days-after-google-facebook-did-the-same/
5. https://crunchbase.com/organization/google
6. https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/05/google-contract-workers-demand-better-pay-and-benefits/
7. https://www.epi.org/publication/the-growing-use-of-mandatory-arbitration-access-to-the-courts-is-now-barred-for-more-than-60-million-american-workers/
8. https://www.blog.google/inside-google/company-announcements/note-our-employees/
9. https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/05/google-contract-workers-demand-better-pay-and-benefits/
10. https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/05/google-contract-workers-demand-better-pay-and-benefits/embed/#?secret=oDSOEN5J4Y

HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 108 - Loop: 51 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 51

Google will shut down Google+ four months early after second data leak

The underloved social network will now close in April
Article word count: 397

HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18649608
Posted by bhauer (karma: 7425)
Post stats: Points: 134 - Comments: 46 - 2018-12-10T17:40:37Z

\#HackerNews #after #data #down #early #four #google #leak #months #second #shut #will

---

Article content:




Illustration by Alex Castro / The Verge

Google+ has suffered another data leak, and Google has decided to shut down the consumer version of the social network [1]four months earlier than it originally planned. Google+ will now close to consumers in April, rather than August. Additionally, API access to the network will shut down within the next 90 days.

[2]According to Google, the new vulnerability impacted 52.5 million users, who could have had profile information like their name, email address, occupation, and age exposed to developers, even if their account was set to private. Apps could also access profile data that had been shared with a specific user, but was not shared publicly.

"“With the discovery of this new bug, we have decided to expedite the shut-down of all Google+ APIs.”"

[3]In October, a similar Google+ vulnerability was revealed to have exposed private user data to developers for as long as three years. The bug was first discovered in March, but not publicly disclosed until October, resulting in [4]significant transparency concerns. In response, Google announced plans to shut down the consumer version of Google+, which had long struggled to attract users. This time around, Google says it discovered the leak on its own and it was live for just six days — between November 7th and November 13th.

“With the discovery of this new bug, we have decided to expedite the shut-down of all Google+ APIs; this will occur within the next 90 days,” reads the blog post, penned by David Thacker, Google’s vice president of project management. “In addition, we have also decided to accelerate the sunsetting of consumer Google+ from August 2019 to April 2019. While we recognize there are implications for developers, we want to ensure the protection of our users.”

Google discovered the bug as part of its standard testing procedure and says there is “no evidence that the app developers that inadvertently had this access for six days were aware of it or misused.” Google says it’s begun notifying users and enterprise customers who were impacted by the bug.

“We understand that our ability to build reliable products that protect your data drives user trust,” Thacker wrote. “We have always taken this seriously, and we continue to invest in our privacy programs.” Google still plans to continue operating Google+ as an enterprise product for companies that subscribe to its G Suite service.

References

Visible links
1. https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/8/17951890/google-plus-shut-down-security-api-change-gmail-android
2. https://www.blog.google/technology/safety-security/expediting-changes-google-plus/
3. https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/8/17951914/google-plus-data-breach-exposed-user-profile-information-privacy-not-disclosed
4. https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/9/17957312/google-plus-vulnerability-privacy-breach-law

HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 104 - Loop: 187 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 52

Search is on for Google workers leaking secrets

Google workers are at each other’s throats over leaks emerging from the search engine giant, according to a former senior employee. Jack Poulson, a former research scientist at Google, has...
Article word count: 125

HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18634941
Posted by fallingfrog (karma: 1253)
Post stats: Points: 86 - Comments: 63 - 2018-12-08T12:33:44Z

\#HackerNews #for #google #leaking #search #secrets #workers

---

Article content:




Google workers are at each other’s throats over leaks emerging from the search engine giant, according to a former senior employee.

Jack Poulson, a former research scientist at Google, has described a culture in which the “number one priority” among senior managers is to stop leaks to the media.

Employees at the company’s headquarters near San Jose, California, are encouraged to monitor their colleagues and list on a web page within Google called “Stopleaks” any confidential information that they see externally. Anyone who is caught revealing information to the press is fired.

Tensions between employees over leaks to the press have also resulted in foul-mouthed arguments, Mr Poulson revealed. During a question and answer session at a company-wide meeting, a senior engineer took the microphone…

HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 78 - Loop: 56 - Rank min: 60 - Author rank: 24

Google is shutting down it's allo messaging service

Google will announce that it’s shutting down the shortlived Google Allo chat app “soon,” according to a reliable source familiar with the plan, although the timeline of the announ…
Article word count: 536

HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18613180
Posted by ganeshkrishnan (karma: 913)
Post stats: Points: 123 - Comments: 88 - 2018-12-05T22:12:09Z

\#HackerNews #allo #down #google #its #messaging #service #shutting

---

Article content:




Google will announce that it’s shutting down the shortlived Google Allo chat app “soon,” according to a reliable source familiar with the plan, although the timeline of the announcement may have been delayed by the backlash stemming from [1]our report about ‘Hangouts classic’ being shuttered.

This development comes almost 8 months after Anil Sabharwal, Vice President of Chrome, Comms and Photos at Google, [2]said that the company was “pausing investment” in Google Allo. Google [3]lost its Allo lead, Amit Fulay, to Facebook in January, and the last major update to Allo, [4]version 26, came not long after.

Lately, some of the app’s remaining users have complained of bugs and broken functionality: there have been [5]messages not being delivered, features like [6]hearting posts randomly disappearing for some, and the latest stable version has been [7]unable to perform Google Drive restores of chats for several weeks.

Meanwhile, essentially the entire Allo team was moved to work on Android Messages and spent the last several months porting over much of Allo’s features and functionality — all leading up to the recent beginnings of evidence that the rollout of Google’s RCS ‘Chat’ [8]initiative is gaining traction.

“The strategy behind Allo was ‘let’s build a really great consumer messaging product really from the ground up,’” Sabharwal [9]said in an interview with The Verge earlier this year. As the publication noted, its fewer than 50 million users made Sabharwal’s frank admission that Allo had “not achieved the level of traction that we’d hoped for” entirely unsurprising.

We’ve reached out to Google for comment on Google Allo’s official retirement, but have yet to hear back.

Hangouts classic, too

The retirement of Google Allo may seem obvious given that Google moved it to the backburner months ago — not to mention that it’s proven unable to take on its competitors in any meaningful way. The forthcoming [10]turn down of ‘Hangouts classic’ may be a bit more surprising to some of its millions of dedicated users, however.

At one point, Google seemed to be signaling that Allo would be a suitable replacement for Hangouts’ consumer chat functionality. Now, Google has confirmed that ‘Hangouts classic’ is [11]getting the axe, as well as announced plans to migrate all users to the currently enterprise-focused Hangouts Chat and Hangouts Meet. Those apps will be [12]opened up to consumers at some point in 2019, Google says.

Messages w/ RCS and Duo

What’s still unclear is exactly how the two Hangouts spin-offs will be positioned alongside Android Messages and Duo, two apps that have much of the same functionality as Hangouts as far as consumers are concerned and [13]seem to be much more the center of focus for that audience. Google continues to invest in both heavily — Duo, unlike Allo, has maintained active development this year and has apparently seen wide-reaching success.

Although Google has stopped short of explicitly confirming this, it seems most likely that Android Messages — powered by RCS ‘Chat’ — will be the true spiritual successor to both Allo and the chat functionality of Hangouts. And [14]Google Duo will likely serve the video calling use cases for consumers. ‘Hangouts classic’ as it’s now called, will be “upgraded” to Hangouts Chat and Hangouts Meet, although it appears those apps will still primarily be aimed at enterprise use cases.

References

Visible links
1. https://9to5google.com/2018/12/02/google-hangouts-shutting-down/
2. https://9to5google.com/2018/04/19/google-rcs-chat/
3. https://9to5google.com/2018/01/08/amit-fulay-head-of-allo-and-duo-for-google-departs-for-facebook/
4. https://9to5google.com/2018/01/19/google-allo-26-apk-teardown/
5. https://www.reddit.com/r/GoogleAllo/comments/a34zw9/messages_sending_but_not_being_delivered/
6. https://www.reddit.com/r/GoogleAllo/comments/a18bxp/meme_image_search_and_ing_posts_removed/
7. https://www.reddit.com/r/GoogleAllo/comments/9r5y3m/allo_restore_fix_version_26/
8. https://9to5google.com/2018/12/04/pixel-3-verizon-rcs-launch/
9. https://9to5google.com/2018/04/19/google-rcs-chat/
10. https://9to5google.com/2018/12/02/google-hangouts-shutting-down/
11. https://9to5google.com/2018/12/02/google-hangouts-shutting-down/
12. https://twitter.com/happyinwater/status/1069590627791327232
13. https://9to5google.com/2018/07/06/google-android-messages-rcs-chat-explained/
14. https://9to5google.com/guides/google-duo/

HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 111 - Loop: 102 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 25

Measuring the “Filter Bubble”: How Google is influencing what you click

Does Google show you different search results based on your personal info, even when signed out and in so-called "incognito" mode? We ran a study to find out.

HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18608306
Posted by The_Reto (karma: 90)
Post stats: Points: 174 - Comments: 61 - 2018-12-05T14:14:02Z

\#HackerNews #bubble #click #filter #google #how #influencing #measuring #the #what #you

---

Article content:




Over the years, there has been [1]considerable [2]discussion of Googleʼs "filter bubble" problem. Put simply, itʼs the manipulation of your search results based on your personal data. In practice this means links are moved up or down or added to your Google search results, necessitating the filtering of other search results altogether. These editorialized results are informed by [3]the personal information Google has on you (like your search, browsing, and purchase history), and puts you in a bubble based on what Googleʼs algorithms think youʼre most likely to click on.

The filter bubble is particularly pernicious when searching for political topics. Thatʼs because undecided and inquisitive voters turn to search engines to conduct basic research on candidates and issues in the critical time when they are forming their opinions on them. If they’re getting information that is swayed to one side because of their personal filter bubbles, then this [4]can have a significant effect on political outcomes in aggregate.

Back in 2012 we ran a study showing Googleʼs filter bubble may have significantly influenced the 2012 U.S. Presidential election by inserting tens of millions of more links for Obama than for Romney in the run-up to that election. Our research inspired an [5]independent study by the Wall Street Journal (paywall):

A Wall Street Journal examination found that the search engine often customizes the results of people who have recently searched for "Obama"—but not those who have recently searched for "Romney."

Now, after the 2016 U.S. Presidential election and other recent elections, there is justified new interest in examining the ways people can be influenced politically online. In that context, we conducted another study to examine the state of Googleʼs filter bubble problem in 2018.

[6]Google has claimed to have taken steps to reduce its filter bubble problem, but our latest research reveals a very different story. Based on a study of individuals entering identical search terms at the same time, we found that:

1. Most participants saw results unique to them. These discrepancies could not be explained by changes in location, time, by being logged in to Google, or by Google testing algorithm changes to a small subset of users.
2. On the first page of search results, Google included links for some participants that it did not include for others, even when logged out and in private browsing mode.
3. Results within the news and videos infoboxes also varied significantly. Even though people searched at the same time, people were shown different sources, even after accounting for location.
4. Private browsing mode and being logged out of Google offered very little filter bubble protection. These tactics simply do not provide the anonymity most people expect. In fact, itʼs simply not possible to use Google search and avoid its filter bubble.

[7]Visualization of three differing Google search results for the query ʼgun controlʼ.

For those interested in more details, weʼve written out everything below, as well as provided the underlying data and code. We hope this work encourages further study of this important issue.

Methodology

We asked [8]volunteers in the U.S. to search for "gun control", "immigration", and "vaccinations" (in that order) at 9pm ET on Sunday, June 24, 2018. Volunteers performed searches first in private browsing mode and logged out of Google, and then again not in private mode (i.e., in "normal" mode). We compiled 87 complete result sets — 76 on desktop and 11 on mobile. Note that we restricted the study to the U.S. because different countries have different search indexes.

During analysis of the search results, we only looked at websitesʼ top-level domains, for example www.cdc.gov/features/vaccines-travel and www.cdc.gov/vaccines/adults would both be treated as just cdc.gov.

Finding #1: Most people saw results unique to them, even when logged out and in private browsing mode.

To count variants of results, we noted the order of the major elements: the organic (regular) links, the news (Top Stories) infobox, and the videos infobox. We ignored ads, sections containing related searches, and other infoboxes. There were variations in these too, but we didnʼt consider them.

A quick note on ordering of links: You might think that as long as the same links are shown to users, the ordering of them is relatively unimportant, but thatʼs not the case. A given link gets only about [9]half as many clicks as the link before it and twice as many clicks as the link after it. In other words, link ordering matters a lot because people click on the first link much more than the second, and so on.

The amount of variations we saw for each search term is listed below. For this part of the study, we excluded mobile results because the number of infoboxes displayed can vary significantly between mobile and desktop. Thatʼs why it says 76 participants instead of the overall total of 87. We also controlled for location (more on that below).

Private browsing mode (and logged out):

\* "gun control": 62 variations with 52/76 participants (68%) seeing unique results. 
 \* "immigration": 57 variations with 43/76 participants (57%) seeing unique results. 
 \* "vaccinations": 73 variations with 70/76 participants (92%) seeing unique results.

Normal mode:

\* "gun control": 58 variations with 45/76 participants (59%) seeing unique results. 
 \* "immigration": 59 variations with 48/76 participants (63%) seeing unique results. 
 \* "vaccinations": 73 variations with 70/76 participants (92%) seeing unique results.

[10]Visualization of unique search results shown for the search query ʼgun controlʼ.

With no filter bubble, one would expect to see very little variation of search result pages — nearly everyone would see the same single set of results. Thatʼs not what we found.

Instead, most people saw results unique to them. We also found about the same variation in private browsing mode and logged out of Google vs. in normal mode.

Now, some search result variation is expected due to two factors that we controlled for. First, search results can change over time, such as the inclusion of time-sensitive links. We controlled for this factor by having everyone search at the same time.

Second, search results can change by location, such as the inclusion of local news articles. We controlled for this factor by checking all links by hand for this possibility, comparing them to the city and state of the volunteer. We saw very few local links for gun control (1 organic link, 1 news infobox link) and immigration (0), though more for vaccinations (15 organic links, 4 news infobox links).

To control for these local links, we replaced all of them with the same placeholder — localdomain.com for organic links and "Local Source" for infoboxes — in all of our analysis. This adjustment means two users whose results only differed by a different local domain in the same slot would not count as different. Interestingly, this adjustment didnʼt affect overall variation significantly.

Another reason you might expect some variation is testing of the search algorithm, where you show slightly different results to different people. In that case, youʼd expect to see most people seeing the same results, with a few people seeing slight differences. What we saw, by contrast, was most people seeing different results.

Google search results typically have ten organic links. While the ordering of those links really matters (i.e. link #1 gets ~40% of clicks, link #2 ~20%, link #3 ~10% and so on), we also wanted to know how many different domains were being displayed.

With no filter bubble, one would expect to see this total to be around ten. We saw significantly more. In private browsing mode, logged out of Google, and with local domains replaced with localdomain.com, here are the totals:

\* "gun control": 19 different domains 
 \* "immigration": 15 different domains 
 \* "vaccinations": 22 different domains

[11]Visualization of domains appearing in organic search results per person.

As you can see this clearly in the visualization above, some people were shown a very unusual set of results relative to the other participants, offered some domains seen by no-one else. If you were one of these people, you would have no way of knowing what youʼre missing.

We also wanted to look at variation within the news (Top Stories) and videos infoboxes. We also saw significant variation within those, even though there are only three slots available. Again, these are for private browsing mode, logged out of Google, and with local domains replaced with "Local Source".

News infobox:

\* "gun control": 3 variations from 5 sources, appearing for 75/76 people. The most common variation was seen by 69 people (90%). 
 \* "immigration": 6 variations from 7 sources, appearing for 76/76 people. The most common variation was seen by 35 people (46%). 
 \* "vaccinations": 2 variations from 3 sources, appearing for 2/76 people. Each variation was seen by one person (1%).

Videos infobox:

\* "gun control": 12 variations from 7 sources, appearing for 75/76 people. The most common variation was seen by 24 people (32%). 
 \* "immigration": 6 variations from 6 sources, appearing for 75/76 people. The most common variation was seen by 42 people (55%). 
 \* "vaccinations": Not shown in the search results.

As an example, the Videos infobox for the "immigration" query showed the following six variations. As with organic search results, the ordering matters here because the second and third slots get far fewer clicks.

\* Today, MSNBC, NBC News (shown to 42 participants) 
 \* MSNBC, Today, NBC News (shown to 26 participants) 
 \* Today, MSNBC, MSNBC (shown to 4 participants) 
 \* MSNBC, Today, Today (shown to 1 participant) 
 \* New York Times, CNN, MSNBC (shown to 1 participant) 
 \* Today, MSNBC, RealClearPolitics (shown to 1 participant)

Remember, we had people search at the same time, and we changed all local-links to the be same, so this variation is not explained by time or location. And again, some people were real outliers; in fact, some didnʼt see the infoboxes at all.

Finding #4: Private browsing mode and being logged out of Google offered almost zero filter bubble protection.

Finally, we saw the variation in private browsing mode (also known as incognito mode) and logged out of Google as about the same as in normal mode. Most people expect both being logged out and going "incognito" to provide some anonymity. Unfortunately, this is a [12]common misconception as websites use IP addresses and [13]browser fingerprinting to identify people that are logged out or in private browsing mode.

If search results were more anonymous in these states, then we would expect everyoneʼs private browsing mode results to be similar. Thatʼs not what we saw.

To test this more rigorously, we took the organic results, excluding ads and infoboxes, and:

1. Assigned each domain a letter (e.g. A for nytimes.com, B for wsj.com, etc.).
2. Made a string of letters for each personʼs results, e.g. ABDFJKMSL.
3. Compared these strings to see how similar they were to each other.

To do this comparison we counted domain changes between different sets of search results, reducing the differences to a number. For example, ABC -> ACB is one change. (Technically, we used a letter to represent each domain within each search result and calculated the [14]Damerau-Levenshtein edit distance between them.)

[15]Visualization showing how edit distances are calculated to measure the difference between strings.

We saw that when randomly comparing peopleʼs private modes to each other, there was more than double the variation than when comparing someoneʼs private mode to their normal mode:

gun control:

\* Average of normal and private browsing mode (same user): 1.03 
 \* Average of private browsing mode (random user): 2.89 
 \* Average of private browsing mode (five closest users): 2.65

immigration:

\* Average of normal and private browsing mode (same user): 1.38 
 \* Average of private browsing mode (random user): 3.28 
 \* Average of private browsing mode (five closest users): 2.80

vaccinations:

\* Average of normal and private browsing mode (same user): 2.23 
 \* Average of private browsing mode (random user): 4.97 
 \* Average of private browsing mode (five closest users): 4.25

[16]Visualization showing that thereʼs little difference in results between searching in normal mode and private browsing mode.

We often hear of confusion that private browsing mode enables anonymity on the web, but this finding demonstrates that Google tailors search results regardless of browsing mode. People should not be lulled into a false sense of security that so-called "incognito" mode makes them anonymous.

Study Data and Code

The data is available for download in two parts: [17]Basic non-identifiable participant data, and [18]raw data from the search results.

The code that we wrote to analyze the data is open source and [19]available on our GitHub repository.

For more privacy advice, [20]follow us on Twitter & get our [21]privacy crash course.

References

Visible links
1. https://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles
2. https://www.wired.com/2016/11/filter-bubble-destroying-democracy/
3. https://www.quora.com/What-does-Google-know-about-me/answer/Gabriel-Weinberg
4. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-the-2016-election-121548
5. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203347104578099122530080836
6. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/17/google-tests-changes-to-its-search-algorithm-how-search-works.html
8. https://twitter.com/DuckDuckGo/status/1009618814164537344
9. https://hughewilliams.com/2012/04/12/clicks-in-search/
12. https://spreadprivacy.com/is-private-browsing-really-private/
13. https://spreadprivacy.com/browser-fingerprinting/
14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damerau%E2%80%93Levenshtein_distance
17. https://duckduckgo.com/download/duckduckgo-filter-bubble-study-2018_participants.xls
18. https://duckduckgo.com/download/duckduckgo-filter-bubble-study-2018_raw-search-results.xls
19. https://github.com/duckduckgo/filter-bubble-study
20. https://twitter.com/duckduckgo
21. https://duckduckgo.com/newsletter

HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 136 - Loop: 317 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 900

Meine Buchempfehlung

Werner Rügemer "Die Kapitalisten des 21. Jahrhunderts" PapyRossa Verlag 2018
Werner Rügemer ist Dr. phil., *1941 und Mitbegründer der Aktion gegen Arbeitsunrecht
Auf dem Rückendeckel wird das Buch so vorgestellt:

Neue Finanzakteure haben nach der Finanzkrise die bisherigen Großbanken abgelöst. Blackrock & Co sind nun die Eigentümer von Banken und Industriekonzernen. Hinzu kommen Private-Equtiy-Fonds, Hedgefonds, Wagniskapital-Investoren und Investmentbanken. Mit Digital-Giganten wie Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Apple und Uber haben die neuen Finanzakteure schon vor Donald Trumps "America First" die US-Dominanz in der EU verstärkt. Arbeits-, Wohn-, Ernährungs- und Lebensverhältnisse: Die neue Ökonomie dringt in die feinsten Poren des Alltagslebens von Milliarden Menschen ein. Die Kapitalisten des 21. Jahrhunderts verstecken ihre Eigentumsrechte in vier Dutzend Finanzoasen, fördern rechtspopulistische Politik, stützen sich auf eine zivile, transatlantische Privatarmee von Beratern und kooperieren in Silicon-Valley-Tradition mit Militär- und Geheimdiensten. Rügemers Analyse schließt mit einem ausführlichen Systemvergleich des nach innen und außen noch aggressiver gewordenen "westlichen" Kapitalismus mit demjenigen Chinas, der auch bei seinen Investitionen in der EU und weltweit einer alternativen Logik folgt, Armut überwindet, erneuerbare Energien forciert und das Völkerrecht achtet.

Ein trotz der Thematik spannendes und informatives Buch, das mir manches Mal starke Nerven abgefordert hat. Bei den geschilderten, mächtigen Finanzakteure und den zahlreichen Abhängigkeiten und Kungeleien kann den Einzelnen schon der Mut verlassen. Doch nur mit diesem Hintergrundwissen können Organisationen diese kriminellen Finanzakteure bekämpfen.

#wernerrügemer #eu #usa #china #finanzakteure #finanzkrise #großbanken #industriekonzerne #privatequityfonds #hedgefonds #amazon #facebook #google #microsoft #apple #uber #investoren #wagniskapital #us-dominanz #lebensverhältnisse #alltagsleben #eigentumsrechte #finanzoasen #privatarmeen #berater #militär #geheimdienste #investitionen #alternativelogik #armut #energien #völkerrecht #eigentümer