5 ms·

"Rules for thee, but not for me" may actually be the oldest trick in the book. Google's hypocrisy here is disappointing, but not surprising in the least.

bb88 4y ago
Also, the CIA destroyed the torture video tapes to prevent embarrassment and further prosecutions of it's employees. So it kinda goes both ways.
- brutal_chaos_ 4y ago
  that doesn't male either right.
  - bb88 4y ago
    My point is that I have a hard time see the Justice Department bring charges for destroying evidence when they didn't do a darn thing against those that did do evil things under the name of the US.
    - Eisenstein 4y ago
      Justice for nobody then! What a great philosophy.
      - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
        More like people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. They should prioritize prosecuting other parts of the government for known offenses. Then when those high level officials are serving long prison sentences they can take the same action against private entities without looking like hypocrites. If they're the good guys.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  You are demonstrating scary level of Moral Confusion. CIA operates in the National interest, at least hypothetically. Google can operate against national interest to make money, or 'whoever pays most' interest. The people of USA have granted CIA privileges of secrecy and legal protections explicitly to do ShadyShit. No-one ever gave Google permission to do ShadyShit. CIA employees go through background checks, US Gov can fire head of CIA for being a dick. Google hires whoever the fuck they want and US government can't fire head of Google no matter what he does. If Google is ever found doing 1% of what CIA does legally (and there ain't much!), they need to be in jail real fast.
  - bb88 4y ago
    No. Destruction of evidence of wrongdoing is illegal whether the government does it or Google. CIA is not exempt from US laws. Otherwise they would be more like the Iranian Republican Guard -- where raping their own citizens apparently is okay. Do you support that? I don't.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - acyou 4y ago
    Morality and legality are the same, when you consider yourself to be on the same side as the law.
    - Eldt 4y ago
      Black and white thinking doesn't work in the real world.
    - goldenManatee 4y ago
      How much do your morals swing as you travel different countries or even states? Age of consent being an example of morality - the legal age varies by country but it would be sociopathetic if someone were to “shop around.” Morality is not legality; the law _aspires_ to codify the spirit of a society’s morals - therefore it is morality that dictates to law, and law aims to catch up to morality when zeitgeists change. Equating the two things would be a poor understanding of sociology and civic politics.
narrator 4y ago
Given the blacklists of google leak[1], I am betting they don't want a congressional subpoena to find out the boatloads of ridiculously politicized censorship they do either. [1]https://www.zachvorhies.com/blacklists/ https://www.zachvorhies.com/blacklists/
- bbor 4y ago
  What do you think about the assertion that these blacklists are for ads? From the linked internal discussion on the shooting: "changes to ad serving and changes to search ranking are done completely independently, and by different teams". Isn't it a good idea not to serve ads on sites that are discussing a recent national trauma? Or at the very least not really related to politics?
  - naasking 4y ago
    > Isn't it a good idea not to serve ads on sites that are discussing a recent national trauma? Or at the very least not really related to politics? I say no, because that devalues truthful reporting on real and important events, in favour of safe pablum that will pass the censors. Real news is important, but who is paying for news if it's not funded by ads?
    - bbor 4y ago
      I mean bad as in “the people paying for the ad slots wouldn’t want it” not “it’s better for society”. Obviously the only morally good answer here is to abolish capitalist profit-seeking organizations altogether, but I’m Assuming I’m preaching to the choir. If you have a company that’s bound by law to seek as much profit as possible, can you really get mad at them for not wanting to show their dumb mobile game ads next to stories about a recent massacre?
MSFT_Edging 4y ago
Power is basically dictated by the ability to make an exception to the rule.
- RajT88 4y ago
  Power makes it easy to do the wrong thing, and harder to do the right thing.
- jessaustin 4y ago
  As Carl Schmitt wrote in 1922, "Sovereign is he who decides on the exception." Schmitt is somewhat out of favor, but his protege Leo Strauss basically created the times we now suffer.

bb88 4y ago

Also, the CIA destroyed the torture video tapes to prevent embarrassment and further prosecutions of it's employees. So it kinda goes both ways.

brutal_chaos_ 4y ago
that doesn't male either right.
- bb88 4y ago
  My point is that I have a hard time see the Justice Department bring charges for destroying evidence when they didn't do a darn thing against those that did do evil things under the name of the US.
  - Eisenstein 4y ago
    Justice for nobody then! What a great philosophy.
    - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
      More like people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. They should prioritize prosecuting other parts of the government for known offenses. Then when those high level officials are serving long prison sentences they can take the same action against private entities without looking like hypocrites. If they're the good guys.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
You are demonstrating scary level of Moral Confusion. CIA operates in the National interest, at least hypothetically. Google can operate against national interest to make money, or 'whoever pays most' interest. The people of USA have granted CIA privileges of secrecy and legal protections explicitly to do ShadyShit. No-one ever gave Google permission to do ShadyShit. CIA employees go through background checks, US Gov can fire head of CIA for being a dick. Google hires whoever the fuck they want and US government can't fire head of Google no matter what he does. If Google is ever found doing 1% of what CIA does legally (and there ain't much!), they need to be in jail real fast.
- bb88 4y ago
  No. Destruction of evidence of wrongdoing is illegal whether the government does it or Google. CIA is not exempt from US laws. Otherwise they would be more like the Iranian Republican Guard -- where raping their own citizens apparently is okay. Do you support that? I don't.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- acyou 4y ago
  Morality and legality are the same, when you consider yourself to be on the same side as the law.
  - Eldt 4y ago
    Black and white thinking doesn't work in the real world.
  - goldenManatee 4y ago
    How much do your morals swing as you travel different countries or even states? Age of consent being an example of morality - the legal age varies by country but it would be sociopathetic if someone were to “shop around.” Morality is not legality; the law _aspires_ to codify the spirit of a society’s morals - therefore it is morality that dictates to law, and law aims to catch up to morality when zeitgeists change. Equating the two things would be a poor understanding of sociology and civic politics.

narrator 4y ago

Given the blacklists of google leak[1], I am betting they don't want a congressional subpoena to find out the boatloads of ridiculously politicized censorship they do either. [1]https://www.zachvorhies.com/blacklists/ https://www.zachvorhies.com/blacklists/

bbor 4y ago
What do you think about the assertion that these blacklists are for ads? From the linked internal discussion on the shooting: "changes to ad serving and changes to search ranking are done completely independently, and by different teams". Isn't it a good idea not to serve ads on sites that are discussing a recent national trauma? Or at the very least not really related to politics?
- naasking 4y ago
  > Isn't it a good idea not to serve ads on sites that are discussing a recent national trauma? Or at the very least not really related to politics? I say no, because that devalues truthful reporting on real and important events, in favour of safe pablum that will pass the censors. Real news is important, but who is paying for news if it's not funded by ads?
  - bbor 4y ago
    I mean bad as in “the people paying for the ad slots wouldn’t want it” not “it’s better for society”. Obviously the only morally good answer here is to abolish capitalist profit-seeking organizations altogether, but I’m Assuming I’m preaching to the choir. If you have a company that’s bound by law to seek as much profit as possible, can you really get mad at them for not wanting to show their dumb mobile game ads next to stories about a recent massacre?

MSFT_Edging 4y ago

Power is basically dictated by the ability to make an exception to the rule.

RajT88 4y ago
Power makes it easy to do the wrong thing, and harder to do the right thing.
jessaustin 4y ago
As Carl Schmitt wrote in 1922, "Sovereign is he who decides on the exception." Schmitt is somewhat out of favor, but his protege Leo Strauss basically created the times we now suffer.