3 ms·

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx Although at the time Eich gave to prop 8 that position was a po

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx Although at the time Eich gave to prop 8 that position was a popular one (Prop. 8 did win a free and fair election after all), when he resigned 6 years later public opinion had already shifted significantly and was clearly in the process of shifting more. In contrast the politics of abortion in the U.S. have remained pretty frozen over the past decades despite intense debate and increasing polarization (as shown by the polls at the link). It’s not exactly the same thing I think. Google treating legally recognized nonprofits equally seems fair to me. If the advertising is truly deceptive that’s a different story, but I read through the article and it failed to give any examples. Is this any different from a brand buying keywords related to a competitor?

teddyh 7y ago
> when he resigned 6 years later public opinion had already shifted significantly and was clearly in the process of shifting more. But his opinion hadn’t shifted. At least he didn’t say so at the time. So, the fact that his opinion was once popular is irrelevant if he still held it when it became widely unpopular. Anyone could be reasonably excused for having a wrong opinion when it is the currently popular one – it’s easy to not examine one’s opinion and simply go with the mainstream of society. But, if one’s opinion is that unexamined, when popular opinion shifts, it’s on oneself to either shift with the times or to be held to account for one’s now non-mainstream opinion. > Google treating legally recognized nonprofits equally seems fair to me. Did Google really give equally to something akin to Planned Parenthood?
- javagram 7y ago
  > So, the fact that his opinion was once popular is irrelevant if he still held it when it became widely unpopular. It’s relevant to the decision of a company worried about associating itself with that opinion. The pro-life view fluctuates between being the majority and minority fairly regularly. A majority of Americans consider abortion immoral. A nonprofit that tries to provide alternatives to abortion would not be seen as a negative thing to a large portion of the population, so google has no reason to discriminate against them unless it wants to take a political view on the matter (which it would have the right to do). > Did Google really give equally to something akin to Planned Parenthood? Did planned parenthood apply for this grant and get denied? Google doesn’t discriminate against them in other contexts. E.g. here’s a news story talking about google matching employee donations to PP https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/12/20/google-charitable-donations-set-record/95636922/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/12/20/google-c...

teddyh 7y ago

> when he resigned 6 years later public opinion had already shifted significantly and was clearly in the process of shifting more. But his opinion hadn’t shifted. At least he didn’t say so at the time. So, the fact that his opinion was once popular is irrelevant if he still held it when it became widely unpopular. Anyone could be reasonably excused for having a wrong opinion when it is the currently popular one – it’s easy to not examine one’s opinion and simply go with the mainstream of society. But, if one’s opinion is that unexamined, when popular opinion shifts, it’s on oneself to either shift with the times or to be held to account for one’s now non-mainstream opinion. > Google treating legally recognized nonprofits equally seems fair to me. Did Google really give equally to something akin to Planned Parenthood?

javagram 7y ago
> So, the fact that his opinion was once popular is irrelevant if he still held it when it became widely unpopular. It’s relevant to the decision of a company worried about associating itself with that opinion. The pro-life view fluctuates between being the majority and minority fairly regularly. A majority of Americans consider abortion immoral. A nonprofit that tries to provide alternatives to abortion would not be seen as a negative thing to a large portion of the population, so google has no reason to discriminate against them unless it wants to take a political view on the matter (which it would have the right to do). > Did Google really give equally to something akin to Planned Parenthood? Did planned parenthood apply for this grant and get denied? Google doesn’t discriminate against them in other contexts. E.g. here’s a news story talking about google matching employee donations to PP https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/12/20/google-charitable-donations-set-record/95636922/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/12/20/google-c...