3 ms·

The amount of comments with plain ad-hominems and zero counterarguments is telling. Is there anyone with an actual counter, or proof, that what Mr. Thiel said

The amount of comments with plain ad-hominems and zero counterarguments is telling. Is there anyone with an actual counter, or proof, that what Mr. Thiel said was plain wrong, in respect to Google?

hojjat12000 7y ago
When somebody claims something, they should provide proof. I can call you a thief, but until I bring any proof for my claim, you are innocent. We are not Google, so don't expect a comment that proves Thiel wrong. Furthermore, I don't know what proof can Google come up with to prove they are not doing anything wrong. Read up on the burden of proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#P...
- bassman9000 7y ago
  Read up Read up this: google doesn't work with the US military any more, but continues to collaborate with the Chinese government. Is that enough proof? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/01/technology/china-google-censored-search-engine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/01/technology/china-google-c...
  - gerash 7y ago
    That's not proof. Alright, here's my understanding of the situation but you can stay as paranoid as you wish about things: Google is among the companies which doesn't do much business in China while many others tech or otherwise (including Trump's) do. China is a big and lucrative market but puts many restrictions on foreign businesses. Google was exploring providing web search and perhaps AdWords to increase its revenue stream as its hard stance against China a decade ago only resulted in domestic Chinese search engines. Working in Chinese market means abiding by their censorship rules. Some idealistic employees who didn't approve of it leaked the effort and it turned into a news cycle. Google eventually decided it's not worth it Separately, another group of activist/idealistic employees felt Google shouldn't be in the war business (unlike IBM which used to sell to Germany half a century ago) and didn't want such research and development work to be used in applications such as drone strikes. So they also teamed up and through various means pushed the upper level management to forgo the military contracts. I'm not approving or disapproving of these decisions but that's how things are. There's no convoluted and dramatic conspiracy
    - bassman9000 7y ago
      https://twitter.com/ravena68/status/1147280709960294400?s=09 https://twitter.com/ravena68/status/1147280709960294400?s=09 This is not paranoia. This is the Chairman of Joint Chiefs testifying so. Your understanding is, at best, wrong.
TomMckenny 7y ago
Are all statements true until proven otherwise? He spoke, with no substantiation, at a conservative conference denouncing a contributor to the democratic party. Not only is that venue suspicious but any real counter intelligence conversation is done discretely. So perhaps the burden of proof is actually on him. And perhaps the requirements for such are rather high. And if anything, his actions strongly discount rather than support his claim.
sgnelson 7y ago
It doesn't work that way. You have an extraordinary claim? You need extraordinary proof. Show me the evidence. And not all attacks are ad hominem. Reputation matters. You can't always separate claims from those making them. If someone has clear biases/something to gain from the claim, it would be unwise to simply to take their statements on at face value. That's my (what I consider) rational and logical counter.
- bassman9000 7y ago
  Reputation matters So you're dismissing Thiel's claims based on reputation. I'd argue that, based on his reputation, on what he has done in this industry and his trajectory, they have even more weight. This is a 2 way street.

The amount of comments with plain ad-hominems and zero counterarguments is telling. Is there anyone with an actual counter, or proof, that what Mr. Thiel said was plain wrong, in respect to Google?

hojjat12000 7y ago

When somebody claims something, they should provide proof. I can call you a thief, but until I bring any proof for my claim, you are innocent. We are not Google, so don't expect a comment that proves Thiel wrong. Furthermore, I don't know what proof can Google come up with to prove they are not doing anything wrong. Read up on the burden of proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#P...

bassman9000 7y ago
Read up Read up this: google doesn't work with the US military any more, but continues to collaborate with the Chinese government. Is that enough proof? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/01/technology/china-google-censored-search-engine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/01/technology/china-google-c...
- gerash 7y ago
  That's not proof. Alright, here's my understanding of the situation but you can stay as paranoid as you wish about things: Google is among the companies which doesn't do much business in China while many others tech or otherwise (including Trump's) do. China is a big and lucrative market but puts many restrictions on foreign businesses. Google was exploring providing web search and perhaps AdWords to increase its revenue stream as its hard stance against China a decade ago only resulted in domestic Chinese search engines. Working in Chinese market means abiding by their censorship rules. Some idealistic employees who didn't approve of it leaked the effort and it turned into a news cycle. Google eventually decided it's not worth it Separately, another group of activist/idealistic employees felt Google shouldn't be in the war business (unlike IBM which used to sell to Germany half a century ago) and didn't want such research and development work to be used in applications such as drone strikes. So they also teamed up and through various means pushed the upper level management to forgo the military contracts. I'm not approving or disapproving of these decisions but that's how things are. There's no convoluted and dramatic conspiracy
  - bassman9000 7y ago
    https://twitter.com/ravena68/status/1147280709960294400?s=09 https://twitter.com/ravena68/status/1147280709960294400?s=09 This is not paranoia. This is the Chairman of Joint Chiefs testifying so. Your understanding is, at best, wrong.

TomMckenny 7y ago

Are all statements true until proven otherwise? He spoke, with no substantiation, at a conservative conference denouncing a contributor to the democratic party. Not only is that venue suspicious but any real counter intelligence conversation is done discretely. So perhaps the burden of proof is actually on him. And perhaps the requirements for such are rather high. And if anything, his actions strongly discount rather than support his claim.

sgnelson 7y ago

It doesn't work that way. You have an extraordinary claim? You need extraordinary proof. Show me the evidence. And not all attacks are ad hominem. Reputation matters. You can't always separate claims from those making them. If someone has clear biases/something to gain from the claim, it would be unwise to simply to take their statements on at face value. That's my (what I consider) rational and logical counter.

bassman9000 7y ago
Reputation matters So you're dismissing Thiel's claims based on reputation. I'd argue that, based on his reputation, on what he has done in this industry and his trajectory, they have even more weight. This is a 2 way street.