6 ms·

> He's not creepy, just honest. Maybe he is creepy AND honest? Possible?

by TotlolRon 16y ago

tbrownaw 16y ago
Possible, but if being honest is considered creepy these days it probably means something very bad about our society.
- nanairo 16y ago
  I find it a bit creepy, because he (or to be exact Google) is one of the people driving us in that direction. If you were on a ship, and the captain told you: "It's hard, but at these rate we'll probably go straight into the storm", and then he turns and does nothing about it, or keeps going... I'd find it a bit creepy. But that's very much a personal opinion. I agree it's not a fair adjective (as in it's too heavy) to use for what we are talking about.
  - wvenable 16y ago
    I think we'd be heading in that direction with or without Google. The technology exists, it will be used.
- raganwald 16y ago
  "if being honest is considered creepy" I don't see it that way, he's not creepy because he's honest, he's creepy because of what he's honest about. The fictional Gordon Gecko was greedy and honest, but we wouldn't say that being honest was considered greedy, just that being greedy was considered greedy and Gordon Gecko happened to be honest about his venality. In this case, the CEO is being accused of creepiness for the beliefs he espouses, and he is honest about them. If the CEO of another search engine believes the exact same things but says otherwise, you're right we wouldn't consider him creepy yet because we wouldn't know. But the moment we find out, we'd consider that CEO creepy and dishonest. Mind you, upmodded for forcing me to examine my beliefs carefully. One thing we don't want to do is give people/companies who don't say one way or the other a free pass. In other words, if another CEO says they're in favour of privacy, fine. But it would be unfair to pile on Eric yet say nothing about Ballmer just because Ballmer doesn't say anything. The right thing to do is to ask Steve Ballmer what Microsoft/Bing's stance is on these exact same issues. And ask FB, and Apple, and everyone else collecting data. Saying nothing should not be better than being honest.
flatulent1 16y ago
He seems honest, just not as comforting as some would like. The problem is reality has become kinda creepy. Google certainly swallowed a lump of creepiness when they bought doubleclick, that company the state of Texas had sued for stalking. One of the former upper figures there was hired by homeland security. Wonder what skill that was for? It seems we must ask if Google is far less evil than others would be in the same position. I'm kind of liking the Apple iAds thing. If done right, it could basically do away with accessing third-party sites when displaying third-party content. The user demographic could be typed simply by the kind of app the ad is in, and just being an Apple customer probably puts him in a more sought-after group of spenders. Hmmm. I just had an odd thought. For games with ads, dumb down the ads for people with low scores. Mental bandwidth adjustment...
- jacquesm 16y ago
  > For games with ads, dumb down the ads for people with low scores. Mental bandwidth adjustment... The people that score the best on games are the ones not playing them. And plenty of games are games of skill and not a good way to measure anything other than their reaction speed to visual stimuli.
  - flatulent1 16y ago
    Okay, let's try going wayyyy beyond that... think what you could do if you actually designed the game for the purpose of testing the user in ways that didn't affect the score.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      Creepy.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - sesqu 16y ago
      There are several games with alternate storylines and choices that do not affect the score. Those choices often don't affect the storyline, either, because it's too much work. When playing such games, I used to save, try various alternatives, and go with the one I liked best in retrospect. When I encountered a game that didn't allow for saving, I was quite bothered and worried about the game "calling home". These days, I mostly wouldn't worry. A lot of kids slaughtered cities in fallout 2, or accepted quests from all sides so they could get in everywhere and steal the silverware. Few meaningful inferences could be made. But the meaningless stuff, like red vs. yellow stimpacks? Doing market research with games? That might be worrisome, depending on your feelings about adwords.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

> He's not creepy, just honest. Maybe he is creepy AND honest? Possible?

tbrownaw 16y ago

Possible, but if being honest is considered creepy these days it probably means something very bad about our society.

nanairo 16y ago
I find it a bit creepy, because he (or to be exact Google) is one of the people driving us in that direction. If you were on a ship, and the captain told you: "It's hard, but at these rate we'll probably go straight into the storm", and then he turns and does nothing about it, or keeps going... I'd find it a bit creepy. But that's very much a personal opinion. I agree it's not a fair adjective (as in it's too heavy) to use for what we are talking about.
- wvenable 16y ago
  I think we'd be heading in that direction with or without Google. The technology exists, it will be used.
raganwald 16y ago
"if being honest is considered creepy" I don't see it that way, he's not creepy because he's honest, he's creepy because of what he's honest about. The fictional Gordon Gecko was greedy and honest, but we wouldn't say that being honest was considered greedy, just that being greedy was considered greedy and Gordon Gecko happened to be honest about his venality. In this case, the CEO is being accused of creepiness for the beliefs he espouses, and he is honest about them. If the CEO of another search engine believes the exact same things but says otherwise, you're right we wouldn't consider him creepy yet because we wouldn't know. But the moment we find out, we'd consider that CEO creepy and dishonest. Mind you, upmodded for forcing me to examine my beliefs carefully. One thing we don't want to do is give people/companies who don't say one way or the other a free pass. In other words, if another CEO says they're in favour of privacy, fine. But it would be unfair to pile on Eric yet say nothing about Ballmer just because Ballmer doesn't say anything. The right thing to do is to ask Steve Ballmer what Microsoft/Bing's stance is on these exact same issues. And ask FB, and Apple, and everyone else collecting data. Saying nothing should not be better than being honest.

flatulent1 16y ago

He seems honest, just not as comforting as some would like. The problem is reality has become kinda creepy. Google certainly swallowed a lump of creepiness when they bought doubleclick, that company the state of Texas had sued for stalking. One of the former upper figures there was hired by homeland security. Wonder what skill that was for? It seems we must ask if Google is far less evil than others would be in the same position. I'm kind of liking the Apple iAds thing. If done right, it could basically do away with accessing third-party sites when displaying third-party content. The user demographic could be typed simply by the kind of app the ad is in, and just being an Apple customer probably puts him in a more sought-after group of spenders. Hmmm. I just had an odd thought. For games with ads, dumb down the ads for people with low scores. Mental bandwidth adjustment...

jacquesm 16y ago
> For games with ads, dumb down the ads for people with low scores. Mental bandwidth adjustment... The people that score the best on games are the ones not playing them. And plenty of games are games of skill and not a good way to measure anything other than their reaction speed to visual stimuli.
- flatulent1 16y ago
  Okay, let's try going wayyyy beyond that... think what you could do if you actually designed the game for the purpose of testing the user in ways that didn't affect the score.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    Creepy.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - sesqu 16y ago
    There are several games with alternate storylines and choices that do not affect the score. Those choices often don't affect the storyline, either, because it's too much work. When playing such games, I used to save, try various alternatives, and go with the one I liked best in retrospect. When I encountered a game that didn't allow for saving, I was quite bothered and worried about the game "calling home". These days, I mostly wouldn't worry. A lot of kids slaughtered cities in fallout 2, or accepted quests from all sides so they could get in everywhere and steal the silverware. Few meaningful inferences could be made. But the meaningless stuff, like red vs. yellow stimpacks? Doing market research with games? That might be worrisome, depending on your feelings about adwords.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]