No worries. Yeah, so this play by google corporate is utter hypocrisy. One would think all attendees would be at least given the option to wear their own product to the shareholder meeting, if not give one to each attendee. This is a very telling act. Thanks for the link!
Obviously Google doesn't want to have their actions monitored by citizens
Im of the belief that if a Company is traded publicly- it has a responsibility to operate publicly. The risk of serious damage to the economy is too great.
Look at FaceBook for example. If the public had the same information that the industry insiders had, their Initial Public Offering would have been much lower (saving the shirts of the "Little Guy" who invested heavily and lost).
7 comments
4 ugdr6424 2013-06-08
Link?
7 MA_Freedom 2013-06-08
Sorry- Im still kind of new to Reddit and I thought the link posted.
Here --> http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/170341/
3 ugdr6424 2013-06-08
No worries. Yeah, so this play by google corporate is utter hypocrisy. One would think all attendees would be at least given the option to wear their own product to the shareholder meeting, if not give one to each attendee. This is a very telling act. Thanks for the link!
6 MA_Freedom 2013-06-08
Its just another instance of Whats good for THEM isnt whats good for US Corporate bulls__t at its finest.
3 omjvivi 2013-06-08
It's an issue of sousveillance vs. Surveillance. Obviously Google doesn't want to have their actions monitored by citizens
7 MA_Freedom 2013-06-08
Im of the belief that if a Company is traded publicly- it has a responsibility to operate publicly. The risk of serious damage to the economy is too great.
Look at FaceBook for example. If the public had the same information that the industry insiders had, their Initial Public Offering would have been much lower (saving the shirts of the "Little Guy" who invested heavily and lost).
1 omjvivi 2013-06-08
I agree. I'm all for transparency. I'm just remarking on authority's dislike for sousveillance