4 ms·
> This is nothing more than a monopoly stomping out a platform it doesn't like. Probably because federation is a threat to Google's position as the central hub
by young_unixer 6y ago
> This is nothing more than a monopoly stomping out a platform it doesn't like. Probably because federation is a threat to Google's position as the central hub of the internet.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
The real reason is that Google employees live in an ideological echo chamber where censoring anything that doesn't align with their ideologies is a completely normal thing to do. They think they're protecting the world from bad ideas, without noticing how they themselves promote other bad ideas.
Basically: the moralistic version of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
- tjs8rj 6y agoThat's fine and reasonable on an individual level, but not only does it seem like a clear case of violation of duty to shareholders to make otherwise unsound biz decisions on the basis of "it's moral", it's also just not an accurate depiction of the business process. Google is a business, and at the level these decisions are made, the decision is made overwhelmingly through the lens of business. A more fitting phrase in the context of a business would more accurately be "never attribute to goodwill that which is adequately explained by sound business thinking".
- spaced-out 6y ago>They think they're protecting the world from bad ideas, without noticing how they themselves promote other bad ideas. They, being Google executives, are only thinking of the company's bottom line when they make these decisions. Don't underestimate the impact of a few thousand (or more) Rose Twitter users spamming a companies marketing page. That company goes to Google and says "make this stop, I don't care how", then Google execs decide who they want to piss off, which is generally the people paying them the least amount of money.