5 ms·

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.

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.
- saas_sam 9y ago
  It's totally provable though. Whether or not it will be proved is another matter. Other witnesses were presumably around so they might chime in. Certainly Google can step in and tell their side. The thing about these sorts of situations is corporations are very hesitant to come out and blatantly lie because it can come back to bite them in a huge way later on. So if Google comes out and refutes these claims, that will suggest they are PROBABLY not true, or at least very different than what we are being told. Not a perfect barometer for the truth, as they certainly can lie and get away with it, but it's better than nothing.
  - jklinger410 9y ago
    Google did chime in. Clearly you didn't read the article you linked to me.
    - saas_sam 9y ago
      You misunderstand, I was referring to WHY these sorts of articles have value, which seemed to me to be the topic of our exchange. Google would not have released a statement on this topic without this article. Likewise, if others have additional information (such as witnesses or journalists at other companies) they are more likely to come out with it.

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.

saas_sam 9y ago
It's totally provable though. Whether or not it will be proved is another matter. Other witnesses were presumably around so they might chime in. Certainly Google can step in and tell their side. The thing about these sorts of situations is corporations are very hesitant to come out and blatantly lie because it can come back to bite them in a huge way later on. So if Google comes out and refutes these claims, that will suggest they are PROBABLY not true, or at least very different than what we are being told. Not a perfect barometer for the truth, as they certainly can lie and get away with it, but it's better than nothing.
- jklinger410 9y ago
  Google did chime in. Clearly you didn't read the article you linked to me.
  - saas_sam 9y ago
    You misunderstand, I was referring to WHY these sorts of articles have value, which seemed to me to be the topic of our exchange. Google would not have released a statement on this topic without this article. Likewise, if others have additional information (such as witnesses or journalists at other companies) they are more likely to come out with it.