3 ms·

I'd say that the title is intended to strongly imply that Google are evil. Also, the vibe the article is trying to create is that if Google don't re-add the api

I'd say that the title is intended to strongly imply that Google are evil. Also, the vibe the article is trying to create is that if Google don't re-add the api, they are probably doing it to block competition (why else would they start with their Microsoft rant at the bottom?) Also.. Privacy issues with Google? Just because they are capturing details you put into their system, doesn't mean they are sharing it, or changing their privacy policy overnight to make all your details public (as Facebook does). Or are you complaining they take photos in public areas?

gnosis 16y ago
"I'd say that the title is intended to strongly imply that Google are evil." The title is "Scroogle has been blocked". How does this imply Google is evil? "Also, the vibe the article is trying to create is that if Google don't re-add the api, they are probably doing it to block competition (why else would they start with their Microsoft rant at the bottom?)" They put in the quote from a lead Microsoft developer that describes Microsoft's anti-competitive practices, and then say "Let's hope Google doesn't do the same thing." Is this an unreasonable hope? I really don't see the problem with what they say here. "Also.. Privacy issues with Google? Just because they are capturing details you put into their system, doesn't mean they are sharing it, or changing their privacy policy overnight to make all your details public (as Facebook does). Or are you complaining they take photos in public areas?" I consider any and all information about me, my interests, my friends (since you bring up Facebook), etc, to be private. If that information is collected without my explicit permission, I consider it a privacy violation. If that information is shared without my explicit permission, it's an even worse privacy violation.
- arantius 16y ago
  > The title is "Scroogle has been blocked". How does this imply Google is evil? The title of the post on HN is "Google scraper may have to be permanently retired, thanks to a change at Google". Big difference.
  - gnosis 16y ago
    That's an even more innocuous title. I really don't see why you think it implies Google is "evil".
    - UnknownSource 16y ago
      If I wrote "Flash no longer available, thanks to a change by Apple", I'm pretty sure you'd probably change your mind. And if I wrote "Linux no longer supports our program due to a change in kernel design. We are asking why it was done. Oh, and Microsoft did the same things 2 years ago and were sued for trying to block competitors. But until we find out, we can't confirm its because they are trying to stop competition." Both of these statements are obviously heavily biased, and yet, that's what we see in the article, and in the hacker news headline. If it weren't biased, why would Scroogle even mention the Microsoft thing? It is hardly relevant. It seems like they are trying to invoke anger by the community, so that Google is forced to reinstate the feature. And judging by the headline here, it seems to have worked. But hey, I guess headlines which are anti-large company on a system which only gets upvotes would generate more attention than neutral ones, because all the Google haters jump on board and vote it up, without reading the article and actually seeing if the headline is remotely accurate.

gnosis 16y ago

"I'd say that the title is intended to strongly imply that Google are evil." The title is "Scroogle has been blocked". How does this imply Google is evil? "Also, the vibe the article is trying to create is that if Google don't re-add the api, they are probably doing it to block competition (why else would they start with their Microsoft rant at the bottom?)" They put in the quote from a lead Microsoft developer that describes Microsoft's anti-competitive practices, and then say "Let's hope Google doesn't do the same thing." Is this an unreasonable hope? I really don't see the problem with what they say here. "Also.. Privacy issues with Google? Just because they are capturing details you put into their system, doesn't mean they are sharing it, or changing their privacy policy overnight to make all your details public (as Facebook does). Or are you complaining they take photos in public areas?" I consider any and all information about me, my interests, my friends (since you bring up Facebook), etc, to be private. If that information is collected without my explicit permission, I consider it a privacy violation. If that information is shared without my explicit permission, it's an even worse privacy violation.

arantius 16y ago
> The title is "Scroogle has been blocked". How does this imply Google is evil? The title of the post on HN is "Google scraper may have to be permanently retired, thanks to a change at Google". Big difference.
- gnosis 16y ago
  That's an even more innocuous title. I really don't see why you think it implies Google is "evil".
  - UnknownSource 16y ago
    If I wrote "Flash no longer available, thanks to a change by Apple", I'm pretty sure you'd probably change your mind. And if I wrote "Linux no longer supports our program due to a change in kernel design. We are asking why it was done. Oh, and Microsoft did the same things 2 years ago and were sued for trying to block competitors. But until we find out, we can't confirm its because they are trying to stop competition." Both of these statements are obviously heavily biased, and yet, that's what we see in the article, and in the hacker news headline. If it weren't biased, why would Scroogle even mention the Microsoft thing? It is hardly relevant. It seems like they are trying to invoke anger by the community, so that Google is forced to reinstate the feature. And judging by the headline here, it seems to have worked. But hey, I guess headlines which are anti-large company on a system which only gets upvotes would generate more attention than neutral ones, because all the Google haters jump on board and vote it up, without reading the article and actually seeing if the headline is remotely accurate.