4 ms·
> How this invitation was phrased or delivered This is irrelevant for the theme. Some could came in a plane and other in a car, but who cares? Is assumed that
by pvaldes 2y ago
> How this invitation was phrased or delivered
This is irrelevant for the theme. Some could came in a plane and other in a car, but who cares? Is assumed that either they were invited or wouldn't had walked on the building and asked about how improve google for hours. I assume that Google has some level of check-in security at least.
> claimed that no such sites existed?
claimed that they weren't shadowbanned, that is a different thing. And they were said that only some pages were affected. This means implicitly that google was aware that the webs existed.
- nailer 2y agoIt’s irrelevant because reaching out to shadow banned companies does not seem like a rational thing for Google to do and and while we may dislike Google they do at least seem rational. I initially read this article with sympathy, but something isn’t adding up
- DidYaWipe 2y agoI think you meant it's relevant. And that's exactly the point: How do you invite "shadow-banned" site owners specifically, without stating why or how this select group has been identified (and denying that anyone's shadow-banned)? This is an obvious question that's ignored by the article.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- nailer 2y agoYes, relevant. I use voice dictation and sometimes it fails.
- DidYaWipe 2y agoIrrelevant? HOW? It's central to the entire topic. The guy claims that shadow-banned people were singled out and invited to participate in this thing. Given that Google denied their existence, how did Google phrase the invitation? "Hi! You've been invited to join a select group of people we totally didn't shadow-ban, to discuss the shadow-banning that didn't happen. We look forward to seeing you and getting your input on not being shadow-banned!"