4 ms·

Neutrality is a myth. On every issue, one either sides with the status quo (explicitly, or implicitly by staying silent) or the opposition. For Google specific

Neutrality is a myth. On every issue, one either sides with the status quo (explicitly, or implicitly by staying silent) or the opposition. For Google specifically, they were never neutral in the first place. You are already getting results tailored to you.

teawrecks 9y ago
Political dichotomies are also a myth.
- calcifer 9y ago
  Sure, but that doesn’t invalidate my point. Even with multiple opposition choices, everyone chooses something.
- sp332 9y ago
  There might not be only one opposing view, but it's true that "staying out of politics" usually means handing more power to whoever is in power already.
  - yndoendo 9y ago
    How about the view of looking for exceptions and false statements and questions politician not by a party line nor a policy but by individual reasoning for said content? Being critical of all.
    - sp332 9y ago
      That seems... very politically active?
  - Slansitartop 9y ago
    No, "staying out of politics" just means refusing to try to tip the scales one way or another and/or being indifferent the outcome.
    - calcifer 9y ago
      That’s just a fancy way of saying “I’m fine with the status quo”.
      - TeMPOraL 9y ago
        No, that's just a way of saying "I don't care either way, and if the status quo completely changes tomorrow, I still won't care".
        calcifer 9y ago
        > if the status quo completely changes tomorrow, I still won’t care … and would implicitly be supporting the new status quo.
        Slansitartop 9y ago
        Indifference ~= I support status quo Q, for any value of Q under consideration. Indifference is a thing, and it's not a positive statement in support of anything. Attempts to portray it as such seems to be a trick to try to draw people into polarized political debates.
        CompanionCuuube 9y ago
        It's a hip rebranding of "if you're not for us, you're against us"
- dbingham 9y ago
  Except for the dichotomy between "Change things" and "leave them more or less as they are". If you choose to be politically active, there are a million roads you could go. But if you are inactive, then you are choosing a single road: allow those with power to keep on as they are.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Still, inactivity is not equivalent to choice. Otherwise we wouldn't have the term "negligence" (for when you really should be acting, but aren't), and the life in society would be an impossibility - after all, you and I, and most of us here, are very inactive about world hunger, human trafficking, human rights abuse, climate change, social justice, etc. Moreover, inactivity/neutrality is different from just "supporting status quo" in the sense that when the status quo changes, you still remain inactive/neutral, instead of fighting against the "new normal".
    - dbingham 9y ago
      It's interesting to me that you assume I am as inactive as you are. As it happens, when I'm not writing code for my job, I'm engaged in activism for those very causes. Remaining inactive or neutral is a choice. Even when that choice is made from apathy. And notice, when negligence leads to direct harm, we treat it as if it were a conscious choice -- with equivalent consequences. Of course there are limits to what any of us can achieve, and we all prioritize things differently. My point wasn't that we can be perfectly active, attempting to solve all problems at once. My point was that choosing not to engage is, in itself, a choice. A choice to let the course of events go as it will, with out attempting to affect it. History shows that often means letting those with power keep it and continue to govern as they will. That only changes when enough people choose to work to change things.
    - gowld 9y ago
      "negligence" means, "choosing inaction when you _should have_ acted. It's a kind of choice. There is a bias that weights action more heavily than inaction, but that bias isn't 1:0, and that bias isn't supported by the authority of moral philosophical consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
throwawayyx96 9y ago
Staying silent isn't an endorsement of the status quo. Similarly, we shouldn't have any expectation that company X or Hollywood celebrity Y owes it to us to denounce whatever the twitterverse currently finds distasteful. Entitled people on social media love the fact that they can bait companies into every political squabble nowadays.
- calcifer 9y ago
  > Staying silent isn’t an endorsement of the status quo. If you stay silent, supporters of the status quo can simply say “see? people are happy with it; if they weren’t more would complain”. So once again, neutrality is a myth and the only people who claim otherwise are those who are content with the status quo.
  - forgottenpass 9y ago
    >If you stay silent, supporters of the status quo can simply say “see? people are happy with it; if they weren’t more would complain”. And their fallacious reasoning should be laughed at. Loudly and often. The alternate is even MORE conductive to enforcing the status quo. When people have to be maximally political all the time, they either have to constantly deal with the blowback inherent to sharing ideas that aren't palatable to the status quo, or outwardly agree with the status quo (for convenience and/or safety). If everyone voices an opinion (but not necessarily THEIR opinion), supporter of the status quo can simply say "see? people are happy with it; if they weren't more people would be dissenting"
    - gowld 9y ago
      > should be laughed at. So you agree that silence is the wrong choice?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - nybble41 9y ago

teawrecks 9y ago

Political dichotomies are also a myth.

calcifer 9y ago
Sure, but that doesn’t invalidate my point. Even with multiple opposition choices, everyone chooses something.
sp332 9y ago
There might not be only one opposing view, but it's true that "staying out of politics" usually means handing more power to whoever is in power already.
- yndoendo 9y ago
  How about the view of looking for exceptions and false statements and questions politician not by a party line nor a policy but by individual reasoning for said content? Being critical of all.
  - sp332 9y ago
    That seems... very politically active?
- Slansitartop 9y ago
  No, "staying out of politics" just means refusing to try to tip the scales one way or another and/or being indifferent the outcome.
  - calcifer 9y ago
    That’s just a fancy way of saying “I’m fine with the status quo”.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      No, that's just a way of saying "I don't care either way, and if the status quo completely changes tomorrow, I still won't care".
      - calcifer 9y ago
        > if the status quo completely changes tomorrow, I still won’t care … and would implicitly be supporting the new status quo.
        Slansitartop 9y ago
        Indifference ~= I support status quo Q, for any value of Q under consideration. Indifference is a thing, and it's not a positive statement in support of anything. Attempts to portray it as such seems to be a trick to try to draw people into polarized political debates.
      - CompanionCuuube 9y ago
        It's a hip rebranding of "if you're not for us, you're against us"
dbingham 9y ago
Except for the dichotomy between "Change things" and "leave them more or less as they are". If you choose to be politically active, there are a million roads you could go. But if you are inactive, then you are choosing a single road: allow those with power to keep on as they are.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Still, inactivity is not equivalent to choice. Otherwise we wouldn't have the term "negligence" (for when you really should be acting, but aren't), and the life in society would be an impossibility - after all, you and I, and most of us here, are very inactive about world hunger, human trafficking, human rights abuse, climate change, social justice, etc. Moreover, inactivity/neutrality is different from just "supporting status quo" in the sense that when the status quo changes, you still remain inactive/neutral, instead of fighting against the "new normal".
  - dbingham 9y ago
    It's interesting to me that you assume I am as inactive as you are. As it happens, when I'm not writing code for my job, I'm engaged in activism for those very causes. Remaining inactive or neutral is a choice. Even when that choice is made from apathy. And notice, when negligence leads to direct harm, we treat it as if it were a conscious choice -- with equivalent consequences. Of course there are limits to what any of us can achieve, and we all prioritize things differently. My point wasn't that we can be perfectly active, attempting to solve all problems at once. My point was that choosing not to engage is, in itself, a choice. A choice to let the course of events go as it will, with out attempting to affect it. History shows that often means letting those with power keep it and continue to govern as they will. That only changes when enough people choose to work to change things.
  - gowld 9y ago
    "negligence" means, "choosing inaction when you _should have_ acted. It's a kind of choice. There is a bias that weights action more heavily than inaction, but that bias isn't 1:0, and that bias isn't supported by the authority of moral philosophical consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

throwawayyx96 9y ago

Staying silent isn't an endorsement of the status quo. Similarly, we shouldn't have any expectation that company X or Hollywood celebrity Y owes it to us to denounce whatever the twitterverse currently finds distasteful. Entitled people on social media love the fact that they can bait companies into every political squabble nowadays.

calcifer 9y ago
> Staying silent isn’t an endorsement of the status quo. If you stay silent, supporters of the status quo can simply say “see? people are happy with it; if they weren’t more would complain”. So once again, neutrality is a myth and the only people who claim otherwise are those who are content with the status quo.
- forgottenpass 9y ago
  >If you stay silent, supporters of the status quo can simply say “see? people are happy with it; if they weren’t more would complain”. And their fallacious reasoning should be laughed at. Loudly and often. The alternate is even MORE conductive to enforcing the status quo. When people have to be maximally political all the time, they either have to constantly deal with the blowback inherent to sharing ideas that aren't palatable to the status quo, or outwardly agree with the status quo (for convenience and/or safety). If everyone voices an opinion (but not necessarily THEIR opinion), supporter of the status quo can simply say "see? people are happy with it; if they weren't more people would be dissenting"
  - gowld 9y ago
    > should be laughed at. So you agree that silence is the wrong choice?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- nybble41 9y ago