5 ms·

It's rather unfair to accuse the other person of creating a strawman. Google was quoted above as calling the service "A safe place for all your files", and del

It's rather unfair to accuse the other person of creating a strawman. Google was quoted above as calling the service "A safe place for all your files", and deletion is clearly not "safe", and there have been court decisions saying that fine print caveats cannot completely negate the clear English part of the advertising. Of course, there have been court decisions saying the opposite, too, but that's sufficient for the OP's point to be better than "strawman" material even if, hypothetically, their argument turns out to be incorrect.

zardeh 10y ago
>Google was quoted above as calling the service "A safe place for all your files", and deletion is clearly not "safe" Then most files aren't safe. A file on your computer isn't safe.
- DougMerritt 10y ago
  There is nothing that is perfectly safe, nor perfectly smooth, nor perfectly white, nor perfectly anything. That doesn't mean that words mean nothing, just because absolutes generally don't exist. In this case, a "reasonable person" (which is often the litmus test that courts use) might well think that "A safe place for all your files" means that Google will take reasonable precautions to keep your files safe, within reason, given current technology and economics and practices. Unilaterally deleting things without notice and without recourse absolutely does not fit that sort of reasonable definition, although it may well be legal nonetheless for various reasons. And regardless of all that, there still is no reason to accuse the OP of a strawman argument, which is kind of rude unless there is a truly strong reason for it -- that's the primary thing I'm arguing, not about philosophical absolutes nor even legality.
  - zardeh 10y ago
    >Unilaterally deleting things without notice and without recourse absolutely does not fit that sort of reasonable definition, although it may well be legal nonetheless for various reasons. If it is a 1 in a million (or less) chance, then its safer than storing them on your own computer, which I think would fit the definition of safe. You're requiring that Google meet an extreme defintion of safety that is beyond what a reasonable person would expect (since a reasonable person woud likely not backup files, or back them up locally, both of which are less safe than google). You're conflating control with safety. As in, you're committing the same fallacy that people who are afraid of flying on airplanes do. An airplane is safer than a vehicle. Drive is safer than a computer. People are afriad of airplanes not because it is more dangerous, but because they are sacrificing control. >there still is no reason to accuse the OP of a strawman argument I didn't. That was someone else, but I appreciate the downvote nonetheless.
    - DougMerritt 10y ago
      > I appreciate the downvote nonetheless. You're too paranoid. I don't yet even have the ability to downvote people; my rating is too low. > the same fallacy Gee thanks. We're not just in disagreement, I'm the idiot who can't reason correctly. I think your logic is unreasonable. I already said why; google isn't living up to what a hypothetical "reasonable person" would expect -- such a person wouldn't expect deletion with no recourse. And if it happened to you, obviously you would change your attitude about what is and is not reasonable; no one wants their stuff deleted. So arguing about it seems possibly disingenuous, regardless of the fine details. > You're requiring that Google meet an extreme defintion of safety that is beyond what a reasonable person would expect Actively deleting files is included in the definition of "safety"? I think not. However again, my main point isn't whether the above person is correct, it's that his point is reasonable enough that it is uncalled for to say he's arguing a strawman.
madmax96 10y ago
Right, but that's not what they were responding to. OP was trying to make it seem like Google acting hypocritically by allegedly helping foster an entitlement mentality was the same as false advertising.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  "Entitlement mentality" is a highly loaded and manipulative term, and I reject its use in this context. Managing consumer expectations in a way that does not reflect reality is the same as false advertising, however.

zardeh 10y ago

>Google was quoted above as calling the service "A safe place for all your files", and deletion is clearly not "safe" Then most files aren't safe. A file on your computer isn't safe.

DougMerritt 10y ago
There is nothing that is perfectly safe, nor perfectly smooth, nor perfectly white, nor perfectly anything. That doesn't mean that words mean nothing, just because absolutes generally don't exist. In this case, a "reasonable person" (which is often the litmus test that courts use) might well think that "A safe place for all your files" means that Google will take reasonable precautions to keep your files safe, within reason, given current technology and economics and practices. Unilaterally deleting things without notice and without recourse absolutely does not fit that sort of reasonable definition, although it may well be legal nonetheless for various reasons. And regardless of all that, there still is no reason to accuse the OP of a strawman argument, which is kind of rude unless there is a truly strong reason for it -- that's the primary thing I'm arguing, not about philosophical absolutes nor even legality.
- zardeh 10y ago
  >Unilaterally deleting things without notice and without recourse absolutely does not fit that sort of reasonable definition, although it may well be legal nonetheless for various reasons. If it is a 1 in a million (or less) chance, then its safer than storing them on your own computer, which I think would fit the definition of safe. You're requiring that Google meet an extreme defintion of safety that is beyond what a reasonable person would expect (since a reasonable person woud likely not backup files, or back them up locally, both of which are less safe than google). You're conflating control with safety. As in, you're committing the same fallacy that people who are afraid of flying on airplanes do. An airplane is safer than a vehicle. Drive is safer than a computer. People are afriad of airplanes not because it is more dangerous, but because they are sacrificing control. >there still is no reason to accuse the OP of a strawman argument I didn't. That was someone else, but I appreciate the downvote nonetheless.
  - DougMerritt 10y ago
    > I appreciate the downvote nonetheless. You're too paranoid. I don't yet even have the ability to downvote people; my rating is too low. > the same fallacy Gee thanks. We're not just in disagreement, I'm the idiot who can't reason correctly. I think your logic is unreasonable. I already said why; google isn't living up to what a hypothetical "reasonable person" would expect -- such a person wouldn't expect deletion with no recourse. And if it happened to you, obviously you would change your attitude about what is and is not reasonable; no one wants their stuff deleted. So arguing about it seems possibly disingenuous, regardless of the fine details. > You're requiring that Google meet an extreme defintion of safety that is beyond what a reasonable person would expect Actively deleting files is included in the definition of "safety"? I think not. However again, my main point isn't whether the above person is correct, it's that his point is reasonable enough that it is uncalled for to say he's arguing a strawman.

madmax96 10y ago

Right, but that's not what they were responding to. OP was trying to make it seem like Google acting hypocritically by allegedly helping foster an entitlement mentality was the same as false advertising.

nitrogen 10y ago
"Entitlement mentality" is a highly loaded and manipulative term, and I reject its use in this context. Managing consumer expectations in a way that does not reflect reality is the same as false advertising, however.