3 ms·

To head off regulators, Google makes certain words taboo (2020)

15 points by hhs 4y ago

barbariangrunge 4y ago
People give him grief over it, but Stallman has always been very picky about how and what words are used when describing things related to computers. The words we use change how we think (and even determine what we can think)
- KMag 4y ago
  > and even determine what we can think The strong Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has been discredited. People can and do easily create new phrases to describe new concepts that don't exist in any language they speak.
  - sieabahlpark 4y ago
    [dead]
  - SilasX 4y ago
    Edit: redacted, I (bizarrely) missed what the parent was replying to.
    - KMag 4y ago
      Language determining what we can think is the strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
Stuff like this drives me up the wall. You police language and culture so nobody is talking about or joking about "bad stuff" and a bunch of jerks who already hate you take this effort as indication of obfuscating whatever bad behavior they suspect you of. You let employees talk and joke freely and the same jerks will take it out of context and you'll be trying to explain someone's dank meme to some regulator who doesn't have a sense of humor. It's a catch-22. There's no winning.
- salawat 4y ago
  The problem is that no one goes through the effort of making an official policy against something unless that something is actually a threat. In Google's case, the impression that abuse of a monopoly position is one such threat. If one is going to make a rule "Under no circumstances, call a spade a spade;" you bet your sweet arse if I'm a regulator, you're getting extra effort in investigating that aspect. It's a "the lady dost protest too much" sorta thing. If you don't have that policy, then I have less reason to believe you are specifically trying to hide something. After all, if you weren't in a monopoly/monopoly adjacent position through continual M&A's, you wouldn't have that problem, now would you?
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    >The problem is that no one goes through the effort of making an official policy against something unless that something is actually a threat FFS. This is exactly what I mean. Is it really not that unforeseeable that some MBAs wouldn't just implement anti-trust training because "it's what all the other BigCos do"? Heck, every defense contractor has anti-bribery training that delves into avoiding optics that hint at the potential for bribery. The overwhelming majority of them aren't bribing anyone. >If one is going to make a rule "Under no circumstances, call a spade a spade;" you bet your sweet arse if I'm a regulator, you're getting extra effort in investigating that aspect. Next time you get pulled over make some wise cracks about trafficking drugs. Then maybe you'll see why they have a "don't talk about drugs" policy.
mistrial9 4y ago
recently two sites and Google translate gave 'censorship' appearing results while browsing openly from California.. one was about some statue to a past hero, and the other was about some polish WWII era resistance group. One was with the translate.google.com site, the other was using the inline 'translate to English' feature in Chromium browser.

15 points by hhs 4y ago

People give him grief over it, but Stallman has always been very picky about how and what words are used when describing things related to computers. The words we use change how we think (and even determine what we can think)

KMag 4y ago
> and even determine what we can think The strong Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has been discredited. People can and do easily create new phrases to describe new concepts that don't exist in any language they speak.
- sieabahlpark 4y ago
  [dead]
- SilasX 4y ago
  Edit: redacted, I (bizarrely) missed what the parent was replying to.
  - KMag 4y ago
    Language determining what we can think is the strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

dsfyu404ed 4y ago

Stuff like this drives me up the wall. You police language and culture so nobody is talking about or joking about "bad stuff" and a bunch of jerks who already hate you take this effort as indication of obfuscating whatever bad behavior they suspect you of. You let employees talk and joke freely and the same jerks will take it out of context and you'll be trying to explain someone's dank meme to some regulator who doesn't have a sense of humor. It's a catch-22. There's no winning.

salawat 4y ago
The problem is that no one goes through the effort of making an official policy against something unless that something is actually a threat. In Google's case, the impression that abuse of a monopoly position is one such threat. If one is going to make a rule "Under no circumstances, call a spade a spade;" you bet your sweet arse if I'm a regulator, you're getting extra effort in investigating that aspect. It's a "the lady dost protest too much" sorta thing. If you don't have that policy, then I have less reason to believe you are specifically trying to hide something. After all, if you weren't in a monopoly/monopoly adjacent position through continual M&A's, you wouldn't have that problem, now would you?
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  >The problem is that no one goes through the effort of making an official policy against something unless that something is actually a threat FFS. This is exactly what I mean. Is it really not that unforeseeable that some MBAs wouldn't just implement anti-trust training because "it's what all the other BigCos do"? Heck, every defense contractor has anti-bribery training that delves into avoiding optics that hint at the potential for bribery. The overwhelming majority of them aren't bribing anyone. >If one is going to make a rule "Under no circumstances, call a spade a spade;" you bet your sweet arse if I'm a regulator, you're getting extra effort in investigating that aspect. Next time you get pulled over make some wise cracks about trafficking drugs. Then maybe you'll see why they have a "don't talk about drugs" policy.

mistrial9 4y ago

recently two sites and Google translate gave 'censorship' appearing results while browsing openly from California.. one was about some statue to a past hero, and the other was about some polish WWII era resistance group. One was with the translate.google.com site, the other was using the inline 'translate to English' feature in Chromium browser.