4 ms·

I think it’s more than fair to highlight Google’s attempt to enlist thousands of users to lobby the government on its behalf. Why would a bit of transparency an

by travoc 5y ago

I think it’s more than fair to highlight Google’s attempt to enlist thousands of users to lobby the government on its behalf. Why would a bit of transparency and exposure to this information bother you so much?

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
"transparency and exposure" - I don't think it is kept secret, according to the article, it is the first thing that Google shows to its users. I have nothing against commenting on that and writing critical articles. What bothers me is the framing as nefarious and evil, of a completely normal activity. Clearly Google has different interests than the author. That doesn't make them evil. Of course the author is also entitled to consider them evil. I merely point out that it is ridiculous, or at least the argument is it evil because they enlist their users is ridiculous. I am not even a fan of Google, I detest them for a lot of things.
- leereeves 5y ago
  > I don't think it is kept secret, according to the article, it is the first thing that Google shows to its users. The first thing Google shows to users of Business Profile. Other people (which is most people) wouldn't know about it without articles like this. And does Google disclose that two of their three sources are funded by Google?
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    As I said (maybe in another thread, I don't remember), I have nothing against reporting that this is happening. I take issue with the framing as nefarious, especially the argument that it is nefarious because they advertise to their own users. By all means, make it public. I personally don't see the huge issue. Of course they are against government regulation that would harm their business. In the same vein I don't think it is very newsworthy that they fund sources they cite. Why wouldn't they?
    - leereeves 5y ago
      Personally I don't think it's nefarious for Google to advertise to their own users, if they are honest. But if they are publishing astroturfed propaganda, as the article claims, I find that nefarious no matter who their audience is. > In the same vein I don't think it is very newsworthy that they fund sources they cite. Why wouldn't they? Obviously they would never say "According to a study we paid for...", because no one would believe it. But it's still a study they paid for, and hiding that fact is meant to make it more credible. It's deceptive.
      - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
        The article doesn't actually claim they are publishing astroturfed propaganda. It says Google references three organizations, one of which has been accused of an Astroturfing campaign by some other organisation, which apparently we are automatically supposed to trust (because we trust everybody who opposes big coporations, I guess?). That google supports organizations that work towards their own goal again is hardly "nefarious", but completely normal and sane behavior. What else are they supposed to do? Donate money to their enemies (which incidentally, they actually do, I expect, but that is besides the point). I am just tired of such articles breathlessly proclaiming big corp conspiracies for normal, sane behavior. I also don't see any references to "a study" in the article. And just because they support some organization that wrote something they like, doesn't mean they paid for that particular thing to be written. Even so, can we not expect some basic internet knowledge from Google users? Why would they automatically trust anything somebody links to support their cause? Of course if you follow a link from Google that says "this supports our cause", you take into account that the source is probably biased. Maybe the real issue is that people have some unrealistic expectations of Google to be some god-like neutral benign entity only working for the common good? No such things exists - and no, governments are not it, either.
        leereeves 5y ago
        Supports is not a strong enough word for an organization whose founder and chief executive officer previously led the public policy team at Google, or another in which Google is one of three partners. It's not like Google made a donation to an organization that already existed which they happen to agree with. Without Google, these organizations wouldn't exist. Which would all be fine, if Google made that clear when referencing them. When some organization makes a public statement, don't you like to know who financed them?

by travoc 5y ago

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago

"transparency and exposure" - I don't think it is kept secret, according to the article, it is the first thing that Google shows to its users. I have nothing against commenting on that and writing critical articles. What bothers me is the framing as nefarious and evil, of a completely normal activity. Clearly Google has different interests than the author. That doesn't make them evil. Of course the author is also entitled to consider them evil. I merely point out that it is ridiculous, or at least the argument is it evil because they enlist their users is ridiculous. I am not even a fan of Google, I detest them for a lot of things.

leereeves 5y ago
> I don't think it is kept secret, according to the article, it is the first thing that Google shows to its users. The first thing Google shows to users of Business Profile. Other people (which is most people) wouldn't know about it without articles like this. And does Google disclose that two of their three sources are funded by Google?
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  As I said (maybe in another thread, I don't remember), I have nothing against reporting that this is happening. I take issue with the framing as nefarious, especially the argument that it is nefarious because they advertise to their own users. By all means, make it public. I personally don't see the huge issue. Of course they are against government regulation that would harm their business. In the same vein I don't think it is very newsworthy that they fund sources they cite. Why wouldn't they?
  - leereeves 5y ago
    Personally I don't think it's nefarious for Google to advertise to their own users, if they are honest. But if they are publishing astroturfed propaganda, as the article claims, I find that nefarious no matter who their audience is. > In the same vein I don't think it is very newsworthy that they fund sources they cite. Why wouldn't they? Obviously they would never say "According to a study we paid for...", because no one would believe it. But it's still a study they paid for, and hiding that fact is meant to make it more credible. It's deceptive.
    - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
      The article doesn't actually claim they are publishing astroturfed propaganda. It says Google references three organizations, one of which has been accused of an Astroturfing campaign by some other organisation, which apparently we are automatically supposed to trust (because we trust everybody who opposes big coporations, I guess?). That google supports organizations that work towards their own goal again is hardly "nefarious", but completely normal and sane behavior. What else are they supposed to do? Donate money to their enemies (which incidentally, they actually do, I expect, but that is besides the point). I am just tired of such articles breathlessly proclaiming big corp conspiracies for normal, sane behavior. I also don't see any references to "a study" in the article. And just because they support some organization that wrote something they like, doesn't mean they paid for that particular thing to be written. Even so, can we not expect some basic internet knowledge from Google users? Why would they automatically trust anything somebody links to support their cause? Of course if you follow a link from Google that says "this supports our cause", you take into account that the source is probably biased. Maybe the real issue is that people have some unrealistic expectations of Google to be some god-like neutral benign entity only working for the common good? No such things exists - and no, governments are not it, either.
      - leereeves 5y ago
        Supports is not a strong enough word for an organization whose founder and chief executive officer previously led the public policy team at Google, or another in which Google is one of three partners. It's not like Google made a donation to an organization that already existed which they happen to agree with. Without Google, these organizations wouldn't exist. Which would all be fine, if Google made that clear when referencing them. When some organization makes a public statement, don't you like to know who financed them?