4 ms·

Jesus, that was some serious word-twisting. It was an impromptu response and IMO they should be weighed with the spirit more than the words in mind. Given the

by srik 13y ago

Jesus, that was some serious word-twisting. It was an impromptu response and IMO they should be weighed with the spirit more than the words in mind. Given the benefit of doubt, I can totally see where Larry was coming from. In fact it seemed bold and even slightly refreshing to hear him convey his thoughts without the usual restrictions. Industry wide conversations start these ways and examination of a problem is crucial before we can attempt to solve it.

eupharis 13y ago
/agreed This is one of the most breathtaking biased pieces I've seen in a very long time. This guy really, really doesn't like Google. Or maybe just Larry Page. Edit: By the same writer: In the same vein as this "story", a bizarre caption in a "story" covering Eric Schmidt's Guardian op-ed suggesting civilian drones are a bad idea: "Google CEO Eric Schmidt knows what's best for us." http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/04/15/ban_civilian_drones_google_ceo_eric_schmidt_cites_privacy_security_risks.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/04/15/ban_civil... I glanced through the first 10 pages of his other stories on Slate. They aren't all rabidly anti-Google. Though he does seem to hold the founders of Google in special disdain for some reason. Now I'm more inclined to think this is simple link-baiting, not bias. He'll say anything for the clicks. Which seems like a common trend on Slate these days. I remember the days when Slate had some really excellent original journalism.