5 ms·

Let me see, the title reads "Open Markets Applauds X" where X is a court verdict against those who're funding the think tank that produced the article. Regardl

Let me see, the title reads "Open Markets Applauds X" where X is a court verdict against those who're funding the think tank that produced the article. Regardless of the content of the article or the fairness of the court's decision, the title itself is inflammatory and nothing less than indicative of someone having a beef and thumbing their nose at Google. The lack of self-awareness on part of whoever came up with that title is astounding.

sah2ed 9y ago
I disagree that the title's author wasn't (self-)aware of Google being one of the think tank's sponsors; I think the author was indeed aware but somehow deluded themselves into thinking that the think tank could live up to the ideals of being truly independent while taking corporate funds. What title do you suggest could have been less inflammatory but still convey the same message?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- fizixer 9y ago
  > I disagree that the title's author wasn't (self-)aware of Google being one of the think tank's sponsors; I think the author was indeed aware but somehow deluded themselves into thinking that the think tank could live up to the ideals of being truly independent while taking corporate funds. Let me take it to an absurd extreme and suggest the following title: "Google Lost and Can Go Suck My D" Last I checked it still qualifies as "truly independent thinking". > What title do you suggest could have been less inflammatory but still convey the same message? Was something like "Open Markets and European Commission's Finding Regarding Google" too hard? edit: nitpick, but "Finding Against X" sounds incorrect. Finding is about something, not for or against. Verdict could be for or against. Given the title itself, I don't exactly have high expectations about the quality of the article which I haven't read yet.
  - unethical_ban 9y ago
    It's a think tank, not a newswire. It has policy positions and opinions. It's completely expected for them to write articles and titles applauding or "regretting" policy moves. Applauding and regretting and whatnot are both leagues more respectful than your outlandish example.
    - fizixer 9y ago
      > Applauding and regretting and whatnot are both leagues more respectful Oh, now you're favoring "respect" over "truly independent thinking"? How odd.
      - unethical_ban 9y ago
        I didn't say that, and you're (probably intentionally) misreading my post. Your original complaint was that they insulted Google by taking a policy stance against them, and that they might as well have made a title regarding sex acts. I was telling you that is ridiculous.
        dang 9y ago
        Please don't post uncivil or unsubstantive comments to HN. This one is unfortunately both, even if your underlying point is correct. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - dang 9y ago
        Would you please stop posting inflammatory and uncivil comments to HN? Especially on divisive topics, where they act as flamebait. We're hoping for a higher quality of discussion here and that requires maintaining a slightly artificial level of self-discipline when annoyed, regardless of what we're annoyed by. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- jcoffland 9y ago
  Think tank is just a more palatable way of saying lobbyist group with integrity. Lobbyists have always pushed the interests of their donors.
SoMisanthrope 9y ago
I must also disagree with the assumption that he was thumbing his nose. It would appear that his role, as a free market proponent, simply placed him at odds with their benefactor (Google). It seems that Google is not open to criticism or dissent, even when those critics are well-written and bring facts to the table. In the end, it would appear that Google has morphed into a typical big corporation, with all of the trappings and whimsy attached thereto. The motto of "Do no harm." is just a bumper sticker to Alphabet, at this point :-(

sah2ed 9y ago

I disagree that the title's author wasn't (self-)aware of Google being one of the think tank's sponsors; I think the author was indeed aware but somehow deluded themselves into thinking that the think tank could live up to the ideals of being truly independent while taking corporate funds. What title do you suggest could have been less inflammatory but still convey the same message?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
fizixer 9y ago
> I disagree that the title's author wasn't (self-)aware of Google being one of the think tank's sponsors; I think the author was indeed aware but somehow deluded themselves into thinking that the think tank could live up to the ideals of being truly independent while taking corporate funds. Let me take it to an absurd extreme and suggest the following title: "Google Lost and Can Go Suck My D" Last I checked it still qualifies as "truly independent thinking". > What title do you suggest could have been less inflammatory but still convey the same message? Was something like "Open Markets and European Commission's Finding Regarding Google" too hard? edit: nitpick, but "Finding Against X" sounds incorrect. Finding is about something, not for or against. Verdict could be for or against. Given the title itself, I don't exactly have high expectations about the quality of the article which I haven't read yet.
- unethical_ban 9y ago
  It's a think tank, not a newswire. It has policy positions and opinions. It's completely expected for them to write articles and titles applauding or "regretting" policy moves. Applauding and regretting and whatnot are both leagues more respectful than your outlandish example.
  - fizixer 9y ago
    > Applauding and regretting and whatnot are both leagues more respectful Oh, now you're favoring "respect" over "truly independent thinking"? How odd.
    - unethical_ban 9y ago
      I didn't say that, and you're (probably intentionally) misreading my post. Your original complaint was that they insulted Google by taking a policy stance against them, and that they might as well have made a title regarding sex acts. I was telling you that is ridiculous.
      - dang 9y ago
        Please don't post uncivil or unsubstantive comments to HN. This one is unfortunately both, even if your underlying point is correct. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - dang 9y ago
      Would you please stop posting inflammatory and uncivil comments to HN? Especially on divisive topics, where they act as flamebait. We're hoping for a higher quality of discussion here and that requires maintaining a slightly artificial level of self-discipline when annoyed, regardless of what we're annoyed by. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
jcoffland 9y ago
Think tank is just a more palatable way of saying lobbyist group with integrity. Lobbyists have always pushed the interests of their donors.

SoMisanthrope 9y ago

I must also disagree with the assumption that he was thumbing his nose. It would appear that his role, as a free market proponent, simply placed him at odds with their benefactor (Google). It seems that Google is not open to criticism or dissent, even when those critics are well-written and bring facts to the table. In the end, it would appear that Google has morphed into a typical big corporation, with all of the trappings and whimsy attached thereto. The motto of "Do no harm." is just a bumper sticker to Alphabet, at this point :-(