5 ms·

Are you opposed to the idea of search engines in general?

by EvanKelly 12y ago

gress 12y ago
Why would you ask that?
- VikingCoder 12y ago
  Because your original comment hints that you don't know how a search engine works. "Mario Costeja Gonzalez" is a sequence of three words to Google, when you search for that. It's not like Google found a unique human profile record corresponding to Mr. Gonzalez, and then showed you all of the web pages corresponding to that unique person. No. It's just words to Google. Now, "George Clooney" is much more likely to be a person with an actual record someplace inside Google... But not "Mario Costeja Gonzalez".
  - gress 12y ago
    I know exactly how a search engine works, so your explanation is irrelevant. I also know that Google is a system operated by humans who are responsible for its effects. If you operate a machine and it harms people, you are responsible. The fact that the harm was done by an automatic process does not change this.
    - VikingCoder 12y ago
      > I know exactly how a search engine works, so your explanation is irrelevant. No, you don't. > Google spiders the web and creates profiles about people It does not create profiles of people. It creates indexes of words. When you look at those words, YOU conclude that it's a profile of a person. CLEARLY, if Google is designed to operate on profiles of people, then it should handle that data carefully, etc. But CLEARLY if Google is designed to operate on indexes of words, then it's nowhere near as clear what should happen if you happen to search for the name of a person. You're now demanding that Google LEARN the difference between words and the names of people, and that it behave differently for the two. So, yes, EvanKelly asked an insightful question: Are you opposed to the idea of indexes of words in general? To which you must honestly answer YES. Because you apparently do not believe that it can be considered JUST an index of words. You want this extra layer of understanding. The telephone company is not responsible for you getting death threats. The post office is not responsible for stopping you from getting a pipe bomb. Making information like this available on the web IS THE PROBLEM. Indexing words should be innocent. It's like you want to sue the owners of a building because a bullet ricocheted off of it and killed your dog. Go after the jerk with the gun, okay?
      - gress 12y ago
        You don't seem to understand that Google is a company run by people who are part of a society. Not some kind of naturally occurring algorithm.
        VikingCoder 12y ago
        Burn the library down, because you were offended by a book. Card catalogs should be illegal. Let's dig up Melvil Dewey and desecrate his corpse. The fundamental question is: is it harmful to run a word index algorithm on the internet's data? You're saying YES. Don't you realize how backwards and harmful that is?
        gress 12y ago
        What have these straw men got to do with anything other than that you don't like the idea of Google having any responsibility for the negative consequences of their service?
        VikingCoder 12y ago
        Am I correct in saying that you think it is harmful to run a word index algorithm on the internet's data?
        gress 12y ago
        You keep asking that and I've already answered. No. The harm is in the information you publish about people. Using a word index algorithm in the process is irrelevant to that.
        VikingCoder 12y ago
        Google didn't publish this information. Google IS a word index algorithm, which ECHOES the information. If you don't want something to show up in the index, then stop it from being published. That's why we keep asking: I assert, "Google IS a word index algorithm on the internet's data. Is it be harmful to run a word index algorithm on the world's data?" To which you say "NO." Then, somehow, you're still asserting that Google did harm. Google Search is JUST a word index algorithm. That is the entirety of what it is. So, by your argument, it is NOT harmful to run Google.
    - Goronmon 12y ago
      I also know that Google is a system operated by humans who are responsible for its effects. If you operate a machine and it harms people, you are responsible. The fact that the harm was done by an automatic process does not change this. How far down the line does this logic follow? Are the people who created the programming language that Google used to write their search algorithm responsible as well? What about the construction company that dug the ditch for the fiber cables in the ground through which Google's information runs. I know exactly how a search engine works, so your explanation is irrelevant. No you don't.
      - gress 12y ago
        I know how a search engine works. Saying I don't know simply proves that you are willing to make statements that you provably cannot support, which weakens everything else you say. I simply disagree with your views on the responsibility of corporations for what they publish. The comments about construction companies and programming languages are a straw man. The issue is the information that Google the company provides to searchers about people. Google the company is providing a service for which they as a company are responsible. The methods they use to provide the service don't change that.
- VikingCoder 12y ago
  Because every time you list something that a search engine does, you conclude that it's harmful. Yes, you are opposed to search engines. You don't think they should echo information (an intrinsic function of a search engine), and you don't think they should prioritize results (an intrinsic function of a search engine). Show me a search engine which DOESN'T echo information posted online, or prioritize results. SHOW ME JUST ONE. Otherwise, admit that you are opposed to the operation of search engines in general.
  - gress 12y ago
    Your arguments are bizarre, and you claim I have said things that I have not. I am not opposed to the operation of search engines. I simply think they should be held responsible by law for the effects they have on society.

Are you opposed to the idea of search engines in general?

gress 12y ago

Why would you ask that?

VikingCoder 12y ago
Because your original comment hints that you don't know how a search engine works. "Mario Costeja Gonzalez" is a sequence of three words to Google, when you search for that. It's not like Google found a unique human profile record corresponding to Mr. Gonzalez, and then showed you all of the web pages corresponding to that unique person. No. It's just words to Google. Now, "George Clooney" is much more likely to be a person with an actual record someplace inside Google... But not "Mario Costeja Gonzalez".
- gress 12y ago
  I know exactly how a search engine works, so your explanation is irrelevant. I also know that Google is a system operated by humans who are responsible for its effects. If you operate a machine and it harms people, you are responsible. The fact that the harm was done by an automatic process does not change this.
  - VikingCoder 12y ago
    > I know exactly how a search engine works, so your explanation is irrelevant. No, you don't. > Google spiders the web and creates profiles about people It does not create profiles of people. It creates indexes of words. When you look at those words, YOU conclude that it's a profile of a person. CLEARLY, if Google is designed to operate on profiles of people, then it should handle that data carefully, etc. But CLEARLY if Google is designed to operate on indexes of words, then it's nowhere near as clear what should happen if you happen to search for the name of a person. You're now demanding that Google LEARN the difference between words and the names of people, and that it behave differently for the two. So, yes, EvanKelly asked an insightful question: Are you opposed to the idea of indexes of words in general? To which you must honestly answer YES. Because you apparently do not believe that it can be considered JUST an index of words. You want this extra layer of understanding. The telephone company is not responsible for you getting death threats. The post office is not responsible for stopping you from getting a pipe bomb. Making information like this available on the web IS THE PROBLEM. Indexing words should be innocent. It's like you want to sue the owners of a building because a bullet ricocheted off of it and killed your dog. Go after the jerk with the gun, okay?
    - gress 12y ago
      You don't seem to understand that Google is a company run by people who are part of a society. Not some kind of naturally occurring algorithm.
      - VikingCoder 12y ago
        Burn the library down, because you were offended by a book. Card catalogs should be illegal. Let's dig up Melvil Dewey and desecrate his corpse. The fundamental question is: is it harmful to run a word index algorithm on the internet's data? You're saying YES. Don't you realize how backwards and harmful that is?
        gress 12y ago
        What have these straw men got to do with anything other than that you don't like the idea of Google having any responsibility for the negative consequences of their service?
        VikingCoder 12y ago
        Am I correct in saying that you think it is harmful to run a word index algorithm on the internet's data?
        gress 12y ago
        You keep asking that and I've already answered. No. The harm is in the information you publish about people. Using a word index algorithm in the process is irrelevant to that.
        VikingCoder 12y ago
        Google didn't publish this information. Google IS a word index algorithm, which ECHOES the information. If you don't want something to show up in the index, then stop it from being published. That's why we keep asking: I assert, "Google IS a word index algorithm on the internet's data. Is it be harmful to run a word index algorithm on the world's data?" To which you say "NO." Then, somehow, you're still asserting that Google did harm. Google Search is JUST a word index algorithm. That is the entirety of what it is. So, by your argument, it is NOT harmful to run Google.
  - Goronmon 12y ago
    I also know that Google is a system operated by humans who are responsible for its effects. If you operate a machine and it harms people, you are responsible. The fact that the harm was done by an automatic process does not change this. How far down the line does this logic follow? Are the people who created the programming language that Google used to write their search algorithm responsible as well? What about the construction company that dug the ditch for the fiber cables in the ground through which Google's information runs. I know exactly how a search engine works, so your explanation is irrelevant. No you don't.
    - gress 12y ago
      I know how a search engine works. Saying I don't know simply proves that you are willing to make statements that you provably cannot support, which weakens everything else you say. I simply disagree with your views on the responsibility of corporations for what they publish. The comments about construction companies and programming languages are a straw man. The issue is the information that Google the company provides to searchers about people. Google the company is providing a service for which they as a company are responsible. The methods they use to provide the service don't change that.
VikingCoder 12y ago
Because every time you list something that a search engine does, you conclude that it's harmful. Yes, you are opposed to search engines. You don't think they should echo information (an intrinsic function of a search engine), and you don't think they should prioritize results (an intrinsic function of a search engine). Show me a search engine which DOESN'T echo information posted online, or prioritize results. SHOW ME JUST ONE. Otherwise, admit that you are opposed to the operation of search engines in general.
- gress 12y ago
  Your arguments are bizarre, and you claim I have said things that I have not. I am not opposed to the operation of search engines. I simply think they should be held responsible by law for the effects they have on society.