3 ms·

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

by 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?
- namesbc 10y ago
  I think I can help clear up one point here at least. You confused Shell Corporation with Holding Company. There is nothing "shell" about a multinational conglomerate. As to your other points, I'll refer you to my original post.
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    Nothing you posted adequately contests anything stated here. The difference between Alphabet being a shell corp or a holding company by definition is almost meaningless since everything that isn't Google is a hilarious failure. If anything it seems designed to shield Google's reputation from all their failing projects, but most nobody is buying it.

by namesbc 10y ago

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?

namesbc 10y ago
I think I can help clear up one point here at least. You confused Shell Corporation with Holding Company. There is nothing "shell" about a multinational conglomerate. As to your other points, I'll refer you to my original post.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  Nothing you posted adequately contests anything stated here. The difference between Alphabet being a shell corp or a holding company by definition is almost meaningless since everything that isn't Google is a hilarious failure. If anything it seems designed to shield Google's reputation from all their failing projects, but most nobody is buying it.