4 ms·

To me this article feels like bandwagoning and hearsay. I am all for the critical attention aimed at Google, but there is simply no teeth to this story at all.

To me this article feels like bandwagoning and hearsay. I am all for the critical attention aimed at Google, but there is simply no teeth to this story at all. Edit: Thanks guys for the criticism about using the word hearsay in this context. I'll never use it that way again, pinky promise.

javajosh 9y ago
Downvoted, because this comment insinuates wrong-doing without any evidence. Think twice before casting meritless aspersions.
- jklinger410 9y ago
  It's ironic that you would say that considering that the article itself insinuates wrong-doing without any evidence.
  - spunker540 9y ago
    "Without any evidence"?? I think first-hand accounts of conversations should count for something. I know it's not as good as a recording, but journalists frequently report on verbal answers to their questions.
saas_sam 9y ago
Hearsay is a legal term to prevent court cases from proceeding on information gleaned from witnesses who are not present. So, if you refuse to go to court as a witness, your coworker who overheard you talk about the case cannot sit in your place. When someone writes a story about someone else's experience, that's not "hearsay," that's just "journalism." You may not think this story sounds credible, but if so you should come up with a different reason than "this is a story about someone else's experience therefore it's unreliable." And anyway, you can just read the original article written by the person who experienced this, if you want to circumvent the "hearsay" thing: http://gizmodo.com/yes-google-uses-its-power-to-quash-ideas-it-doesn-t-li-1798646437 http://gizmodo.com/yes-google-uses-its-power-to-quash-ideas-...
- jklinger410 9y ago
  Pardon me for using hearsay colloquially. Since we are not in a courtroom, I didn't think anyone would presume I'm using legalese, but I digress. The issue I have with the article, referring my toothless remark, is this part >told me that I needed to unpublish the story because the meeting had been confidential, and the information discussed there had been subject to a non-disclosure agreement between Google and Forbes. (I had signed no such agreement, hadn’t been told the meeting was confidential, and had identified myself as a journalist.) So no one told you that the meeting was confidential, it was, and they asked you to take it down. Ok, yawn. Then from the article you posted: >Somehow, very quickly, search results stopped showing the original story at all. Pics or it didn't happen. Then you follow through to see no proof anywhere. "Bandwagoning" as I said previously, on how this other group lost funding for criticizing Google. Then an email confirming the NDA and that Forbes willingly took down the article. The whole time this person has no evidence or proof of these things actually occurring. Saying things like "it stopped showing up in search" "I couldn't find it in the cache" "no one told me there was an NDA" "I heard Google say the +1 button helped your rank" all lack any ability to verify. Journalists love to journal, though. So let's continue with this gossip.
  - saas_sam 9y ago
    I totally get it, I would like to see more evidence also, so this story shouldn't be taken as gospel truth. However, it should also not be discounted as false. Google needs to respond to these accusations and make it clear what their stance is on this sort of behavior. Not because the accusations themselves are super credible, but because the accusations speak to a deep concern many of Google's customers have about the power they wield.
    - jklinger410 9y ago
      >I totally get it, I would like to see more evidence also Right, me too. I can't find Google doing anything wrong here. The article was under NDA so Forbes and Google took it down willingly. No proof of the +1 statement. No proof of Google censoring the article. We have no story here. Unprovable accusations don't help your side of the fight, though. Even if they hint at something that is true.
eksemplar 9y ago
How is this hearsay in any form?

javajosh 9y ago

Downvoted, because this comment insinuates wrong-doing without any evidence. Think twice before casting meritless aspersions.

jklinger410 9y ago
It's ironic that you would say that considering that the article itself insinuates wrong-doing without any evidence.
- spunker540 9y ago
  "Without any evidence"?? I think first-hand accounts of conversations should count for something. I know it's not as good as a recording, but journalists frequently report on verbal answers to their questions.

saas_sam 9y ago

Hearsay is a legal term to prevent court cases from proceeding on information gleaned from witnesses who are not present. So, if you refuse to go to court as a witness, your coworker who overheard you talk about the case cannot sit in your place. When someone writes a story about someone else's experience, that's not "hearsay," that's just "journalism." You may not think this story sounds credible, but if so you should come up with a different reason than "this is a story about someone else's experience therefore it's unreliable." And anyway, you can just read the original article written by the person who experienced this, if you want to circumvent the "hearsay" thing: http://gizmodo.com/yes-google-uses-its-power-to-quash-ideas-it-doesn-t-li-1798646437 http://gizmodo.com/yes-google-uses-its-power-to-quash-ideas-...

jklinger410 9y ago
Pardon me for using hearsay colloquially. Since we are not in a courtroom, I didn't think anyone would presume I'm using legalese, but I digress. The issue I have with the article, referring my toothless remark, is this part >told me that I needed to unpublish the story because the meeting had been confidential, and the information discussed there had been subject to a non-disclosure agreement between Google and Forbes. (I had signed no such agreement, hadn’t been told the meeting was confidential, and had identified myself as a journalist.) So no one told you that the meeting was confidential, it was, and they asked you to take it down. Ok, yawn. Then from the article you posted: >Somehow, very quickly, search results stopped showing the original story at all. Pics or it didn't happen. Then you follow through to see no proof anywhere. "Bandwagoning" as I said previously, on how this other group lost funding for criticizing Google. Then an email confirming the NDA and that Forbes willingly took down the article. The whole time this person has no evidence or proof of these things actually occurring. Saying things like "it stopped showing up in search" "I couldn't find it in the cache" "no one told me there was an NDA" "I heard Google say the +1 button helped your rank" all lack any ability to verify. Journalists love to journal, though. So let's continue with this gossip.
- saas_sam 9y ago
  I totally get it, I would like to see more evidence also, so this story shouldn't be taken as gospel truth. However, it should also not be discounted as false. Google needs to respond to these accusations and make it clear what their stance is on this sort of behavior. Not because the accusations themselves are super credible, but because the accusations speak to a deep concern many of Google's customers have about the power they wield.
  - jklinger410 9y ago
    >I totally get it, I would like to see more evidence also Right, me too. I can't find Google doing anything wrong here. The article was under NDA so Forbes and Google took it down willingly. No proof of the +1 statement. No proof of Google censoring the article. We have no story here. Unprovable accusations don't help your side of the fight, though. Even if they hint at something that is true.

eksemplar 9y ago

How is this hearsay in any form?