9 ms·

It's weird that someone commenting here never read corporate PR before, I guess it's not any weirder than the proliferation of anti capitalist sentiment in a st

It's weird that someone commenting here never read corporate PR before, I guess it's not any weirder than the proliferation of anti capitalist sentiment in a startup incubator community section. Still it's not nearly as nonsensical as this case in which a website operator is being fined billions for not featuring other website some more.

pulse7 9y ago
"for not featuring other website some more" => for not featuring other website equally as own ones...
- dontnotice 9y ago
  My point is that it's nonsensical that they would have to feature anyone at all.
  - andrepd 9y ago
    They are by far the preeminent search engine of the Web. They use that position to promote their own services to the detriment of others. This is against antitrust law and thankfully the European commission stepped in.
    - pulse7 9y ago
      "This is against antitrust law" in the market they operate on.
andrepd 9y ago
I don't see your point. It's odd to call out the corporate doublespeak because... everyone does it? And I'm thankful that the all-pervasive Google behemoth is subject to some regulations, thank you very much.
coldtea 9y ago
>It's weird that someone commenting here never read corporate PR before You seem to confuse having never read PR releases with still being outraged by their BS. Something being familiar doesn't make it right -- or means that only people that have never seen it would ever be enraged by it. For pointing out "nonsensical" stuff this was a very nonsensical argument. Not even wrong.
- jimmywanger 9y ago
  > You seem to confuse having never read PR releases with still being outraged by their BS. You seem to confuse having valid concerns vs. making assumptions. Calling a PR release BS without any fact is illogical at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Google wants to give the best search results possible, and it obviously has hooks into it's own shopping database that allow it to show targeted results. A logical conclusion would be to force Google to open up its API, so that internal customers and external customers would be competing on the same playing field, rather than just complaining about search result orders.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Google wants to give the best search results possible Citation needed. Why would Google want to give "the best search results possible" over other concerns (e.g. manipulating tests results to boost paid advertisers or its own properties) as it has been known to do?
    - jimmywanger 9y ago
      > Why would Google want to give "the best search results possible" over other concerns Because that is what they claim, and to call somebody a liar requires evidence, not unfounded accusations.
      - andrepd 9y ago
        I can't believe I'm reading this. I'm gonna suggest you read that again. I can't believe you can be that naive. "Trust corporations' PR because they wouldn't do such a thing as lie", that's some neat stuff. x) Besides, there's this something called burden of proof?

pulse7 9y ago

"for not featuring other website some more" => for not featuring other website equally as own ones...

dontnotice 9y ago
My point is that it's nonsensical that they would have to feature anyone at all.
- andrepd 9y ago
  They are by far the preeminent search engine of the Web. They use that position to promote their own services to the detriment of others. This is against antitrust law and thankfully the European commission stepped in.
  - pulse7 9y ago
    "This is against antitrust law" in the market they operate on.

andrepd 9y ago

I don't see your point. It's odd to call out the corporate doublespeak because... everyone does it? And I'm thankful that the all-pervasive Google behemoth is subject to some regulations, thank you very much.

coldtea 9y ago

>It's weird that someone commenting here never read corporate PR before You seem to confuse having never read PR releases with still being outraged by their BS. Something being familiar doesn't make it right -- or means that only people that have never seen it would ever be enraged by it. For pointing out "nonsensical" stuff this was a very nonsensical argument. Not even wrong.

jimmywanger 9y ago
> You seem to confuse having never read PR releases with still being outraged by their BS. You seem to confuse having valid concerns vs. making assumptions. Calling a PR release BS without any fact is illogical at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Google wants to give the best search results possible, and it obviously has hooks into it's own shopping database that allow it to show targeted results. A logical conclusion would be to force Google to open up its API, so that internal customers and external customers would be competing on the same playing field, rather than just complaining about search result orders.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Google wants to give the best search results possible Citation needed. Why would Google want to give "the best search results possible" over other concerns (e.g. manipulating tests results to boost paid advertisers or its own properties) as it has been known to do?
  - jimmywanger 9y ago
    > Why would Google want to give "the best search results possible" over other concerns Because that is what they claim, and to call somebody a liar requires evidence, not unfounded accusations.
    - andrepd 9y ago
      I can't believe I'm reading this. I'm gonna suggest you read that again. I can't believe you can be that naive. "Trust corporations' PR because they wouldn't do such a thing as lie", that's some neat stuff. x) Besides, there's this something called burden of proof?