3 ms·

It isn't about wanting to deceive, it is about their seemingly unwillingness to admit; these are related, but not at all the same. It is the same kind of semant

by saurik 6y ago

It isn't about wanting to deceive, it is about their seemingly unwillingness to admit; these are related, but not at all the same. It is the same kind of semantic difference people think is really important when discussing scenarios like "you didn't misplace my item on accident, you discarded it on purpose and we both know that: I want to hear you say it out loud".

tshaddox 6y ago
But, as others have mentioned, it's extremely standard to use phrasing like "can't do that" and "unable to do that" like this. It's simply not reasonable to interpret this messaging as intended to claim that it's physically impossible to do the thing. I totally understand being upset with Google's policy and decision here, but this particular criticism about the wording they used is simply disingenuous.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  We all know what it means because we are familiar with numerous other cases of such dissembling. That does not make it any less dishonest; it just means they are members of a big, dishonest club.
  - tshaddox 6y ago
    It’s not dishonest when it’s how everyone uses language and how everyone else understands the language.
    - ncmncm 6y ago
      It is not how everyone uses language. I do not use language that way. If you used language that way, you would be dishonest. It is how dishonest corporations use language. That we are aware they are dishonest does not make them less so.
      - tshaddox 6y ago
        It’s not dishonest because it is language used with a certain intended meaning and that intended meaning is clear to everyone including the people complaining about it. That’s precisely what normal, honest usage of language is: you have an intended meaning and you effectively convey the intended meaning.
        ncmncm 6y ago
        Brazen lying does convey an intended meaning; an action that speaks louder than words, it always conveys the same meaning: "You're a fucking peasant who has to take what you get." Sometimes that's true. Most times they hope you will believe it's true. Many people have been trained to believe it, true or not. A business concerned you may take your custom elsewhere will not insult you this way. It is the mark of a monopolist or a crook. I will make a point of remembering your relationship with truth.
        krageon 6y ago
        > It is the mark of a monopolist or a crook. It could just be that they know every other option will treat you in the same shitty way. I suppose you could stick that under 'crook'.
    - Quekid5 6y ago
      This is how corporations use language. It's about "optics". I'd personally call it an 'absuse' or 'misuse' or... 'misleading use' of language, but you do you.
- zepto 6y ago
  > it's extremely standard to use phrasing like "can't do that" and "unable to do that" It’s standard corporate doublespeak. Just because a lot of corporations do something by habit, doesn’t make it disingenuous to critique. Google in particular tried to be a different and less evil kind of company. We know that ship has sailed, but it doesn’t mean the values that it spoke to are any less important.

by saurik 6y ago

tshaddox 6y ago

But, as others have mentioned, it's extremely standard to use phrasing like "can't do that" and "unable to do that" like this. It's simply not reasonable to interpret this messaging as intended to claim that it's physically impossible to do the thing. I totally understand being upset with Google's policy and decision here, but this particular criticism about the wording they used is simply disingenuous.

ncmncm 6y ago
We all know what it means because we are familiar with numerous other cases of such dissembling. That does not make it any less dishonest; it just means they are members of a big, dishonest club.
- tshaddox 6y ago
  It’s not dishonest when it’s how everyone uses language and how everyone else understands the language.
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    It is not how everyone uses language. I do not use language that way. If you used language that way, you would be dishonest. It is how dishonest corporations use language. That we are aware they are dishonest does not make them less so.
    - tshaddox 6y ago
      It’s not dishonest because it is language used with a certain intended meaning and that intended meaning is clear to everyone including the people complaining about it. That’s precisely what normal, honest usage of language is: you have an intended meaning and you effectively convey the intended meaning.
      - ncmncm 6y ago
        Brazen lying does convey an intended meaning; an action that speaks louder than words, it always conveys the same meaning: "You're a fucking peasant who has to take what you get." Sometimes that's true. Most times they hope you will believe it's true. Many people have been trained to believe it, true or not. A business concerned you may take your custom elsewhere will not insult you this way. It is the mark of a monopolist or a crook. I will make a point of remembering your relationship with truth.
        krageon 6y ago
        > It is the mark of a monopolist or a crook. It could just be that they know every other option will treat you in the same shitty way. I suppose you could stick that under 'crook'.
  - Quekid5 6y ago
    This is how corporations use language. It's about "optics". I'd personally call it an 'absuse' or 'misuse' or... 'misleading use' of language, but you do you.
zepto 6y ago
> it's extremely standard to use phrasing like "can't do that" and "unable to do that" It’s standard corporate doublespeak. Just because a lot of corporations do something by habit, doesn’t make it disingenuous to critique. Google in particular tried to be a different and less evil kind of company. We know that ship has sailed, but it doesn’t mean the values that it spoke to are any less important.