4 ms·

> It's no different than evangelicals who try to impose their morality on everyone else Are you trying to suggest that there aren't certain words it's inapprop

> It's no different than evangelicals who try to impose their morality on everyone else Are you trying to suggest that there aren't certain words it's inappropriate to use in certain types of writing?

dogman144 4y ago
Are you suggesting it is Google's job to enforce it?
- serenitylater 4y ago
  They’re not enforcing shit, they’re just letting people know that the word can have a negative connotation. This could be extremely helpful for a newer English speaker, someone from another culture, or god forbid someone who just wants to use language that won’t make someone upset.
  - sacrosancty 4y ago
    Yep, it would have helped you to capitalize "God" and not offend Christians. Or better yet, not even written the word itself. You can use "G*d" to be safe.
    - dehrmann 4y ago
      It's still a proper noun. It's dicier when you capitalize "lord" or "his."
    - raxxorraxor 4y ago
      A bit sacrosanct perhaps? But it is technically correct. We should give Google a nudge that they include it.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    > … they’re just letting people know that the word can have a negative connotation. A negative connotation amongst those whom subscribe to a very specific religious dogma. > … god forbid someone who just wants to use language that won’t make someone upset. Clearly “upsetting people” is not the metric. It’s only considered a problem if you upset the people privileged under your particular ideology.
  - dogman144 4y ago
    This is a nuanced take that I hadn't considered, fair enough. For people just trying to go along to get along in their communications and feel there are minefields everywhere, I could see this tool being a relief/helpful. I personally don't think that relief is worth the tradeoff, but I def can agree to disagree.
- theossuary 4y ago
  Can you explain how a squiggly line is enforcement?
  - dogman144 4y ago
    Would you say it isn't enforcement then, and if so how? I certainly spell my words differently if I get a red squiggly line. Do you not? Tech rarely "enforces" via direct controls unless a regulation is forcing it. What it does instead are nudges like this, and pretending the nudges don't have notable and similar impact is either naive or in suggested bad faith due to the company one works at.
    - madeofpalk 4y ago
      The intention of the feature is that it will have an impact - that's usually the main goal of features. Just because something has an impact doesn't mean it is enforcement. Trust me when I say Google isn't going to throw you in the gulag for putting a word in whatever design doc you're writing.
      - dogman144 4y ago
        I didn't imply GOOG was setting up gulags, but I will refer to my early comment in response - it's either naive or bad faith to say that network effects from dominant players do not lead to enforcement in everything but name, and that the scope of concerns from engineers and the products they build should stop at "well, its just a feature." Algorithmic news feeds on social media was just a feature too. Enforcements, mandates, suggestions, impacts, governances, features - spitting hairs semantically on the overall issue that tech "features" shape areas that tech and its product owners have no business shaping/influencing/impacting/enforcing but still do anyway, let alone even understand, and the downstream ramifications are significant. They get away with it partially via enablers like your view which minimize the dynamic to local examples that open up framing the counterpoint as something absurd - yes, Google's gulags aren't built yet. Edit - to put at least one impact of tech like this another way, it's not Google that puts a user in a gulag. It's the coworker of the user who notices a phrase the coworker also typed, was caught by Google, and the coworker corrected - why didn't that user also change it? All these second order effects were doubtlessly considered by that Google product team, I'm sure? Putting aside my original point that Google doesn't even belong in this space by a mile.
PeterisP 4y ago
I'd suggest that the set of words which are appropriate or inappropriate are strongly dependent on the writer, context and the type of writing, and attempting to impose a single specific set of words as a privileged set of appropriateness/inappropriateness is indeed simply imposing their morality on everyone else. In many cases they are making a false assertion that a particular word is inappropriate, simply because it's inappropriate for them in their context/culture/morality while it's entirely appropriate for the writer's context/culture/morality; and those false assertions essentially attempt to change the writers' own notion of what's appropriate or not towards what Google considers appropriate - and I don't agree that Google should be allowed to apply such social influence.

dogman144 4y ago

Are you suggesting it is Google's job to enforce it?

serenitylater 4y ago
They’re not enforcing shit, they’re just letting people know that the word can have a negative connotation. This could be extremely helpful for a newer English speaker, someone from another culture, or god forbid someone who just wants to use language that won’t make someone upset.
- sacrosancty 4y ago
  Yep, it would have helped you to capitalize "God" and not offend Christians. Or better yet, not even written the word itself. You can use "G*d" to be safe.
  - dehrmann 4y ago
    It's still a proper noun. It's dicier when you capitalize "lord" or "his."
  - raxxorraxor 4y ago
    A bit sacrosanct perhaps? But it is technically correct. We should give Google a nudge that they include it.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  > … they’re just letting people know that the word can have a negative connotation. A negative connotation amongst those whom subscribe to a very specific religious dogma. > … god forbid someone who just wants to use language that won’t make someone upset. Clearly “upsetting people” is not the metric. It’s only considered a problem if you upset the people privileged under your particular ideology.
- dogman144 4y ago
  This is a nuanced take that I hadn't considered, fair enough. For people just trying to go along to get along in their communications and feel there are minefields everywhere, I could see this tool being a relief/helpful. I personally don't think that relief is worth the tradeoff, but I def can agree to disagree.
theossuary 4y ago
Can you explain how a squiggly line is enforcement?
- dogman144 4y ago
  Would you say it isn't enforcement then, and if so how? I certainly spell my words differently if I get a red squiggly line. Do you not? Tech rarely "enforces" via direct controls unless a regulation is forcing it. What it does instead are nudges like this, and pretending the nudges don't have notable and similar impact is either naive or in suggested bad faith due to the company one works at.
  - madeofpalk 4y ago
    The intention of the feature is that it will have an impact - that's usually the main goal of features. Just because something has an impact doesn't mean it is enforcement. Trust me when I say Google isn't going to throw you in the gulag for putting a word in whatever design doc you're writing.
    - dogman144 4y ago
      I didn't imply GOOG was setting up gulags, but I will refer to my early comment in response - it's either naive or bad faith to say that network effects from dominant players do not lead to enforcement in everything but name, and that the scope of concerns from engineers and the products they build should stop at "well, its just a feature." Algorithmic news feeds on social media was just a feature too. Enforcements, mandates, suggestions, impacts, governances, features - spitting hairs semantically on the overall issue that tech "features" shape areas that tech and its product owners have no business shaping/influencing/impacting/enforcing but still do anyway, let alone even understand, and the downstream ramifications are significant. They get away with it partially via enablers like your view which minimize the dynamic to local examples that open up framing the counterpoint as something absurd - yes, Google's gulags aren't built yet. Edit - to put at least one impact of tech like this another way, it's not Google that puts a user in a gulag. It's the coworker of the user who notices a phrase the coworker also typed, was caught by Google, and the coworker corrected - why didn't that user also change it? All these second order effects were doubtlessly considered by that Google product team, I'm sure? Putting aside my original point that Google doesn't even belong in this space by a mile.

PeterisP 4y ago

I'd suggest that the set of words which are appropriate or inappropriate are strongly dependent on the writer, context and the type of writing, and attempting to impose a single specific set of words as a privileged set of appropriateness/inappropriateness is indeed simply imposing their morality on everyone else. In many cases they are making a false assertion that a particular word is inappropriate, simply because it's inappropriate for them in their context/culture/morality while it's entirely appropriate for the writer's context/culture/morality; and those false assertions essentially attempt to change the writers' own notion of what's appropriate or not towards what Google considers appropriate - and I don't agree that Google should be allowed to apply such social influence.