2 ms·

> I wish this didn't need to be explicitly specified, but "someone else could harm people" isn't a defense for you actively harming people A statistical inevit

> I wish this didn't need to be explicitly specified, but "someone else could harm people" isn't a defense for you actively harming people A statistical inevitability is a defense for something. The world doesn't have perfect things. Stop trying to frame something bad just because it isn't perfect. If you manage to stop that, then it would be possible to have a constructive discussion.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
> A statistical inevitability is a defense for something no it isn't, and also being screwed over by the leading search provider isn't a statistical inevitably anyways > Stop trying to frame something bad just because it isn't perfect. If you manage to stop that, then it would be possible to have a constructive discussion. stop trying to justify the means with the ends, more specifically trying to justify google actively harming people (sorry to break the news to you, but harming people IS bad), just because they also happened to do a good thing, when they have the non-mutually-exclusive option to harm people less, and instead choose to avoid that option if you manage to stop that, then it would be possible to have a constructive discussion about how google can harm people less, since currently it seems like you're okay with google actively harming people any amount less than or equal to the amount of "good" they claim to do (with the determination made by you personally, natch), even when they could choose not to
- Avamander 3y ago
  > no it isn't If you think it's possible to be 100% accurate detecting phish then I've got a bridge to sell you.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    if you think it's a statistical inevitability that every single website will eventually be screwed over by google, well, that's just weird given how much you've been defending google even if that were true, it simply isn't a defense for google choosing to actively harm people: "google was going to screw over this site sooner or later, so you can't get mad at them for doing it now." like, is that supposed to make google look better? It really doesn't.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

> A statistical inevitability is a defense for something no it isn't, and also being screwed over by the leading search provider isn't a statistical inevitably anyways > Stop trying to frame something bad just because it isn't perfect. If you manage to stop that, then it would be possible to have a constructive discussion. stop trying to justify the means with the ends, more specifically trying to justify google actively harming people (sorry to break the news to you, but harming people IS bad), just because they also happened to do a good thing, when they have the non-mutually-exclusive option to harm people less, and instead choose to avoid that option if you manage to stop that, then it would be possible to have a constructive discussion about how google can harm people less, since currently it seems like you're okay with google actively harming people any amount less than or equal to the amount of "good" they claim to do (with the determination made by you personally, natch), even when they could choose not to

Avamander 3y ago
> no it isn't If you think it's possible to be 100% accurate detecting phish then I've got a bridge to sell you.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  if you think it's a statistical inevitability that every single website will eventually be screwed over by google, well, that's just weird given how much you've been defending google even if that were true, it simply isn't a defense for google choosing to actively harm people: "google was going to screw over this site sooner or later, so you can't get mad at them for doing it now." like, is that supposed to make google look better? It really doesn't.