3 ms·
I'm not quite sure what the author is going on about in that post: 'google is good but they make money so they're not good', 'google makes lots of products, the
by rasterizer 13y ago
I'm not quite sure what the author is going on about in that post: 'google is good but they make money so they're not good', 'google makes lots of products, then kills some of them so they're evil', 'google design is not perfect so I don't like them'.
It seems like he started from the assumption that Google is evil then he went rambling around that without making a coherent argument.
And I think by "rodeo" he meant IO? it's gibberish.
- jtbigwoo 13y ago"Goat rodeo" is slang for a particularly chaotic situation where nobody's in charge and everybody's going in different directions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goat_rodeo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goat_rodeo
- rasterizer 13y agoI see, then no convincing case was made to support that unless if you count the lament about experimentation and their numerous products, and no reasonable connection was made between that and 'evilness'.
- rplacd 13y agoI'm convinced he makes what is at the very least an articulated argument for the first (but never specifically attempts the second) - although I'm forced to use capstone statements here. He specifically says: > There is no unified Google that is “good” or “evil”. There is just an organizational clusterfuck that is unable to decide what it thinks is truly the best way to “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”5. Is that by forcing web authors into a social network in order to improve directory results? Is that by dipping a toe into the music business? Is that by abandoning standards like RSS and XMPP/Jabber? I don’t think so. and > Google is not “evil”. Google is too big to be evil. At its worst, Google is banal.