3 ms·

Neither this article nor the linked one on this issue suggests that Gerrit De Vynck personally believes that the issue with generating black slavers or Asian Na

Neither this article nor the linked one on this issue suggests that Gerrit De Vynck personally believes that the issue with generating black slavers or Asian Nazis is an "anti-White" bias. What De Vynck is actually claiming here is that Google blocked the ability to generate images of people on Gemini after some users accused it of anti-White bias, so it is a claim about the nature of the specific complaints which prompted Google's reversal of policy. I don't know if this is correct, but if it were not, that would be a different issue than the one you are claiming exists here.

mjburgess 2y ago
When you say, "Google did X because of Y" you mean that it did X because of Y. Google did not prevent people from generating these images because anyone accused it of "Anti-White Bias". It did so because it was generating pictures of black nazis. The author's framing this issue as one born of a conservative grievance is just a piece of the author's propaganda. Namely, they clearly believe that since Google's policy was explicitly ideologically leftwing in its political aims, and since that policy failed, it must have been some Conservatives who did it. ie., it is an example of the author unable, or unwilling, to mention the failure of this project on its own terms. ie., that google's output was even more racist because of its aims, not inspite of them. The author would have readers believe "it was the Conservatives!" rather than engage with the real explanation which implicates his the failure of his own world view. It would be unworthy of remark for a generic journalist to be so poorly informed, but as a person respsonible for covering these issues, it comes across as incredibly childish and manipulative
- mannykannot 2y ago
  You are claiming knowledge of Google's true motives for this change without evidence. More importantly, making allegations about Gerrit De Vynck's motives, mindset and competence without evidence, while De Vynck presents evidence in the articles - not enough evidence to remove all doubt (newspapers are not academic papers), but certainly more than you are presenting here. The style of your posts gives the impression that you think your allegations are either self-evident facts or follow from them, but whether or not that is how you feel about them, I'm not buying it without better evidence - and if anything, ending with "it comes across as incredibly childish and manipulative" makes it seem less likely that your conclusions can be supported by dispassionate reasoning from objective facts.

mjburgess 2y ago

When you say, "Google did X because of Y" you mean that it did X because of Y. Google did not prevent people from generating these images because anyone accused it of "Anti-White Bias". It did so because it was generating pictures of black nazis. The author's framing this issue as one born of a conservative grievance is just a piece of the author's propaganda. Namely, they clearly believe that since Google's policy was explicitly ideologically leftwing in its political aims, and since that policy failed, it must have been some Conservatives who did it. ie., it is an example of the author unable, or unwilling, to mention the failure of this project on its own terms. ie., that google's output was even more racist because of its aims, not inspite of them. The author would have readers believe "it was the Conservatives!" rather than engage with the real explanation which implicates his the failure of his own world view. It would be unworthy of remark for a generic journalist to be so poorly informed, but as a person respsonible for covering these issues, it comes across as incredibly childish and manipulative

mannykannot 2y ago
You are claiming knowledge of Google's true motives for this change without evidence. More importantly, making allegations about Gerrit De Vynck's motives, mindset and competence without evidence, while De Vynck presents evidence in the articles - not enough evidence to remove all doubt (newspapers are not academic papers), but certainly more than you are presenting here. The style of your posts gives the impression that you think your allegations are either self-evident facts or follow from them, but whether or not that is how you feel about them, I'm not buying it without better evidence - and if anything, ending with "it comes across as incredibly childish and manipulative" makes it seem less likely that your conclusions can be supported by dispassionate reasoning from objective facts.