2 ms·

I didn't say that google was planning a conspiracy to oust the president, I said the commentary is embarrassing and disgraceful but not illegal. It is ok if you

I didn't say that google was planning a conspiracy to oust the president, I said the commentary is embarrassing and disgraceful but not illegal. It is ok if you disagree with my opinion. > Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better it will make it worse, because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that Google shouldn't be speaking in such a cavalier fashion about Trump. The exec didn't say "the fake news situation" she said "the Trump situation" and in google's position combined with the context of today's political environment it is unacceptable to speak in a fashion that suggests a specific candidate is a problem to be solved. Personally, I regard Trump as a criminal who deserves to be impeached and jailed, but google shouldn't be speaking in a manner that suggests they are laboring with intent to stifle Trump.

magicalist 7y ago
> I didn't say that google was planning a conspiracy to oust the president I didn't say you said that, I was referring to the site's accusations as they try to drum up a narrative. > Google shouldn't be speaking in such a cavalier fashion about Trump Well Google didn't, this person did in a private conversation, and as long as we're being precise, she didn't refer to Trump, she referred to companies being "charged with preventing the next Trump situation". > it is unacceptable to speak in a fashion that suggests a specific candidate is a problem to be solved I mean you're saying that devoid of context, a bad interpretation is just as likely as a good interpretation, which is at least "embarrassing and disgraceful" on her part. Which is the whole issue with project veritas and context, isn't it? We don't actually know what she was referring to, but I'll refer you back to your own "Project veritas has repeatedly shown itself to be untrustworthy" comment for where we shouldn't be putting the benefit of the doubt. And again, that ambiguous clause said by someone in casual conversation is all that's going on here. There's nothing else revealed in this "case".
UncleMeat 7y ago
> Google shouldn't be speaking in such a cavalier fashion about Trump. Google isn't. A loose private conversation involves context clues. "The Trump Situation" clearly refers to content manipulation not "the election of Trump". Perhaps all Googlers should forever speak in formally verifiable language to avoid any ambiguity lest their words be weaponized.

magicalist 7y ago

> I didn't say that google was planning a conspiracy to oust the president I didn't say you said that, I was referring to the site's accusations as they try to drum up a narrative. > Google shouldn't be speaking in such a cavalier fashion about Trump Well Google didn't, this person did in a private conversation, and as long as we're being precise, she didn't refer to Trump, she referred to companies being "charged with preventing the next Trump situation". > it is unacceptable to speak in a fashion that suggests a specific candidate is a problem to be solved I mean you're saying that devoid of context, a bad interpretation is just as likely as a good interpretation, which is at least "embarrassing and disgraceful" on her part. Which is the whole issue with project veritas and context, isn't it? We don't actually know what she was referring to, but I'll refer you back to your own "Project veritas has repeatedly shown itself to be untrustworthy" comment for where we shouldn't be putting the benefit of the doubt. And again, that ambiguous clause said by someone in casual conversation is all that's going on here. There's nothing else revealed in this "case".

UncleMeat 7y ago

> Google shouldn't be speaking in such a cavalier fashion about Trump. Google isn't. A loose private conversation involves context clues. "The Trump Situation" clearly refers to content manipulation not "the election of Trump". Perhaps all Googlers should forever speak in formally verifiable language to avoid any ambiguity lest their words be weaponized.