4 ms·
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 ir
by 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 agoGoogle 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.
- gress 12y agoYou seem to be saying that there is no Google corporation, no Larry Page or Sergei Brin, and no Google Offices or employees, or executives. That is what it means to assert that google is just an algorithm.
- VikingCoder 12y ago"Is it be harmful to run a word index algorithm on the world's data?" That question COULD NOT BE MORE CLEAR. It doesn't matter if Larry Page and Sergey Brin form a corporation named Google to do it, or not. And yet, you say "No, it's not harmful" when we ask you, but then you say, "Yes, it is harmful, if Larry and Sergey make a company called Google to do it." YOU ARE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF.
- gress 12y agoI am not contradicting myself. You are simply repeating a straw man argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Note in particular point 2 of the structure: Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. Google is much more than a word index, so claiming that this is just about word indexes is a misrepresentation. I'm sorry you are making this error.
- VikingCoder 12y agoAt what point does it stop being a word index, which you assert is harmless... And start being "much more," which you assert is harmful. The ONLY WAY to not have a contradiction is to have a clear line between the two. Or else you're stuck with "I'll know it when I see it" which is no way to write laws. So, please educate us, at what point does it become harmful?
- gress 12y agoAny time you publish information on the web you need to consider whether you are defaming someone. This applies whether a word index is part of your publishing process or not. These laws aren't written about 'word indexes' they are written about the rights people have to publish information about other people. That is what is at issue.
- VikingCoder 12y agoPlease just admit that you can't answer my question. You assert that A) is harmless, and B) is harmful, but you can't explain the difference between A and B. YOU'RE the one who said that A is harmless, and B is harmful. NOT ME. If you conclude from all of this discussion, that it is inherently HARMFUL to operate a word index algorithm on the internet's data, that's fine. I disagree, but that's at least a coherent position. But for some bizarre reason, you claim that operating a word index algorithm on the internet's data is not harmful... but that what Google does is harmful. I'm sorry you're incapable of defending your own thought process.
- gress 12y agoThe harm is done by what Google publishes. I've told you this repeatedly. The fact that they use a word index as part of the mechanism is irrelevant. I have repeatedly defended my thought processes. You have simply ignored what I've said, and focused obsessively on whether 'word indexes' are inherently harmful. This has no more relevance than asking whether 'cpu's' are inherently harmful. Many companies use word indexes in what they do. Not all companies are Google. Therefore google is not just a word index.