4 ms·

Are you trying to parody a debunked conspiracy theorist? You are good, but your "isn't really a solid proof of Google manipulating results, but that doesn't mea

by namesbc 10y ago

Are you trying to parody a debunked conspiracy theorist? You are good, but your "isn't really a solid proof of Google manipulating results, but that doesn't mean it's true that they aren't" line that gave you away as a parody account.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago
Hey, this is the realm of easily provable fact. If Google isn't manipulating results: Prove it. It's easy to do, just open source the algorithm. Long as you can't do that, you're not really doing much to advance the conversation. Just being a paid shill for your employer.
- namesbc 10y ago
  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/One_single_proof http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/One_single_proof The cool thing about linked logical fallacies as an argument point is that, like Bible verses you can find one to support every side of an argument.
    - namesbc 10y ago
      "Thou shalt not quote logical fallacies unless one has read its definition first" -- Argument 10:1 There's no proof that Google is manipulating search results, and when anyone fabricates a new possible manipulation it is immediately debunked. And yet you still want me to prove the negative. I'm not asking for a key proof, I'm asking for any proof.
      - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
        Is not Google proud of their tradition of manipulating presentation to encourage behavior? Outside the already listed examples above which refer directly to search results, I recall a proud blog about how Google figured out they could manipulate their own employees into eating healthier by rearranging the food on the buffet in the cafeteria. Given the clear relationship of corrupt influence in our government by Google (feel free to try and "debunk" this one, please), can you not accept that it is not just reasonable, but prudent to be skeptical of Google's search ranking motives? I mean, your employer has literally actively gotten involved in overthrowing governments in collaboration with Hillary: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/google-built-tech-to-support-the-syrian-uprising-clinton-email-says/ar-BBqK9kd http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/google-built-tech-to-sup... I personally am generally hesitant to factually state "Google is manipulating search results in favor of Hillary Clinton", because, as you said, I don't see conclusive evidence. But acting like people are wrong to be suspicious is not much better. If I were to make an educated guess as to whether or not they are, I'd be inclined to guess that they are. You work for a company that makes Comcast look positively cuddly by comparison. The fact that some bad articles used bad evidence does not prove Google is not manipulating search results, it's merely the http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy at work.
        namesbc 10y ago
        Let me try to summarize your argument. 1) Google posted about putting healthier snacks closer to eye level in employee kitchens. 2) Unsubstantiated claim that Google has a corrupt influence on the US Government. 3) Google Ideas helped create a visualization of Syrian officials who publically opposed the government for the newspaper Al Jazeera: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/syriadefections/ http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/syriadefections... Therefore, Google is manipulating search results in favor of Hillary Clinton. It is difficult for me to believe that you take your own arguments seriously
        ocdtrekkie 10y ago
        You might want to read up on http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Strawman http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Strawman because when you believe that you should write your own version of someone else's point, in a manner that doesn't represent the position or the logic therein, you may in fact be putting up a strawman to try and discredit the other person. "Unsubstantiated"? Do your own homework on how many Congressmen are in Google's pocket: http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/?q=Google+Inc&cx=010677907462955562473%3Anlldkv0jvam&cof=FORID%3A11 http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/?q=Google+Inc&cx=01067790... EDIT: Sorry, your company hid most of their donations under their shell corp this year: http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/?q=Alphabet&cx=010677907462955562473%3Anlldkv0jvam&cof=FORID%3A11 http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/?q=Alphabet&cx=0106779074... Not to mention Google literally having bought out one of our previous FTC Commissioners, who was paid to fabricate "academic studies" that supported Google's legal positions, which Google then used as "independent" evidence of their claims. During his FTC term, the investigation of Google's conduct mysteriously disappeared, despite the staff at the FTC recommending a case proceed. (And almost every other civilized country has opened such a case against Google. Why's the US silent on the matter?) You work for a criminal organization that uses deception and manipulation as basic operational currency. And you expect me to take your arguments seriously?

by namesbc 10y ago

ocdtrekkie 10y ago

Hey, this is the realm of easily provable fact. If Google isn't manipulating results: Prove it. It's easy to do, just open source the algorithm. Long as you can't do that, you're not really doing much to advance the conversation. Just being a paid shill for your employer.

namesbc 10y ago
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/One_single_proof http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/One_single_proof The cool thing about linked logical fallacies as an argument point is that, like Bible verses you can find one to support every side of an argument.
  - namesbc 10y ago
    "Thou shalt not quote logical fallacies unless one has read its definition first" -- Argument 10:1 There's no proof that Google is manipulating search results, and when anyone fabricates a new possible manipulation it is immediately debunked. And yet you still want me to prove the negative. I'm not asking for a key proof, I'm asking for any proof.
    - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      Is not Google proud of their tradition of manipulating presentation to encourage behavior? Outside the already listed examples above which refer directly to search results, I recall a proud blog about how Google figured out they could manipulate their own employees into eating healthier by rearranging the food on the buffet in the cafeteria. Given the clear relationship of corrupt influence in our government by Google (feel free to try and "debunk" this one, please), can you not accept that it is not just reasonable, but prudent to be skeptical of Google's search ranking motives? I mean, your employer has literally actively gotten involved in overthrowing governments in collaboration with Hillary: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/google-built-tech-to-support-the-syrian-uprising-clinton-email-says/ar-BBqK9kd http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/google-built-tech-to-sup... I personally am generally hesitant to factually state "Google is manipulating search results in favor of Hillary Clinton", because, as you said, I don't see conclusive evidence. But acting like people are wrong to be suspicious is not much better. If I were to make an educated guess as to whether or not they are, I'd be inclined to guess that they are. You work for a company that makes Comcast look positively cuddly by comparison. The fact that some bad articles used bad evidence does not prove Google is not manipulating search results, it's merely the http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy at work.
      - namesbc 10y ago
        Let me try to summarize your argument. 1) Google posted about putting healthier snacks closer to eye level in employee kitchens. 2) Unsubstantiated claim that Google has a corrupt influence on the US Government. 3) Google Ideas helped create a visualization of Syrian officials who publically opposed the government for the newspaper Al Jazeera: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/syriadefections/ http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/syriadefections... Therefore, Google is manipulating search results in favor of Hillary Clinton. It is difficult for me to believe that you take your own arguments seriously
        ocdtrekkie 10y ago
        You might want to read up on http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Strawman http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Strawman because when you believe that you should write your own version of someone else's point, in a manner that doesn't represent the position or the logic therein, you may in fact be putting up a strawman to try and discredit the other person. "Unsubstantiated"? Do your own homework on how many Congressmen are in Google's pocket: http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/?q=Google+Inc&cx=010677907462955562473%3Anlldkv0jvam&cof=FORID%3A11 http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/?q=Google+Inc&cx=01067790... EDIT: Sorry, your company hid most of their donations under their shell corp this year: http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/?q=Alphabet&cx=010677907462955562473%3Anlldkv0jvam&cof=FORID%3A11 http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/?q=Alphabet&cx=0106779074... Not to mention Google literally having bought out one of our previous FTC Commissioners, who was paid to fabricate "academic studies" that supported Google's legal positions, which Google then used as "independent" evidence of their claims. During his FTC term, the investigation of Google's conduct mysteriously disappeared, despite the staff at the FTC recommending a case proceed. (And almost every other civilized country has opened such a case against Google. Why's the US silent on the matter?) You work for a criminal organization that uses deception and manipulation as basic operational currency. And you expect me to take your arguments seriously?