4 ms·

> Please think for a minute in your web activities, you will get to realize that you are not roaming the internet but instead you are roaming Google Services an

> Please think for a minute in your web activities, you will get to realize that you are not roaming the internet but instead you are roaming Google Services and many others served by Google Services. Please think for a minute in Google Search, Gmail, YouTube, Blogger, Google+, Analytics, AdSense, AdWords, Docs, Drive, Chrome, Maps, Hangouts, and Talk etc... This is an argument I see a lot - just think and you will realize how right I am. It is often used in place of an evidence-based argument and is an appeal TO your logical brain FROM someone's emotional brain. It always makes me uncomfortable, because it's not far from "search your heart/feelings" - the basis of any logic- or evidence-free argument. It also seems to have the negative undertone of "if you DON'T agree with me, you obviously can't "think" on my level." It's not that there isn't evidence of Google being less-than savory - I would argue there is - but I'd research that argument first, not just appeal for emotional sympathies.

privong 12y ago
> This is an argument I see a lot - just think and you will realize how right I am. It is often used in place of an evidence-based argument and is an appeal TO your logical brain FROM someone's emotional brain. I think there's a lot of evidence that people don't respond to logic-based appeals as logically as one would hope. Often, confronted with strong evidence that contradicts people's deeply-held beliefes or feelings, they'll just double-down on those beliefs. Climate change is the most obvious example. While as a scientist I'm sympathetic to your argument, I think the jury is still out regarding the most effective way to go about convincing people to change their beliefs or behavior. EDIT: typos, reword for clarity
- themartorana 12y ago
  I read those studies - that in the face of evidence, people cling to their disproven beliefs even more [0]. It has been coined "The Backfire Effect" [1] They were the scariest and most fascinating I've read in a long while. [0] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antivaccination-parents-dig-in-heels-even-after-receiving-medical-info/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antivaccination-pa... [1] (PDF) http://web.archive.org/web/20110511211719/http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bnyhan/nyhan-reifler.pdf http://web.archive.org/web/20110511211719/http://www-persona...
ilaksh 12y ago
It isn't an appeal to emotional sympathy. He is saying that an inordinate amount of our internet activities involve Google services and that isn't healthy for an open internet. He is "appealing" for you to simply analyze your own daily activities to see what percentage involves the open internet versus Google services.
michaelmcmillan 12y ago
Great analysis! I'll remember this the next time someone argues without any evidence other than clever rhetorics.
ds9 12y ago
Somehow I'm missing your point. If sites make requests to Google Analytics, Google APIs, etc., then anyone who looks at those sites and allows the requests is being tracked and data-mined, and is contributing to Google's power as an internet participant, and contributing to widespread dependence on one company. That's fact, not emotion. There is an emotional element in either caring about this or not, so maybe that is what you mean. Also, listing the Google properties like he does probably overstates things for a rhetorical effect - certainly not everyone is such a heavy user of Google services. I would guess that most people online use only a few of them (and that you would demand numbers rather than guesses). Nevertheless the point is sound, though expressed in a hyperbolic way.
ahmedatia 12y ago
OP: actually I didn't mean that literally, but I tried to express how I feel about that and what I see around me ... so what I really meant to look into your daily activities, and see if anything can be replaced by some other alternatives and if so, give it a try but eventually your view/analysis is great.
- themartorana 12y ago
  Fair enough. I think some research in to the actual market penetration of some of Google's non-search products would make a stronger argument - like Analytics is used in about 49% of all web properties[0] but your point is taken. And it's true, of all the web properties I own, Google is all over them. [0] http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ta-googleanalytics/all/all http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ta-googleanalytics/a...
e40 12y ago
The research is Frontline's "United States of Secrets, Part 2" which aired in the last week or so.
coldtea 12y ago
Two things wrong with what you're saying: He might have used the phrase "Please think for a minute" (...) "you will get to realize that", but right next to that he gave concrete examples of tons of Google services we use everyday. That's evidence of their multitude, variety and importance. Plus, it's not like his text ended there -- he argued his position in other parts of his post too. Second, it's not like "just think and you will realize how right I am" is any kind of brain jiu-jitsu. It's just a manner of speaking -- I've never seen anyone win an argument on an forum discussion using that. >It's not that there isn't evidence of Google being less-than savory - I would argue there is - but I'd research that argument first, not just appeal for emotional sympathies. Probably reading too much (including intent) in an innocent and not very interesting turn of phrase.

privong 12y ago

> This is an argument I see a lot - just think and you will realize how right I am. It is often used in place of an evidence-based argument and is an appeal TO your logical brain FROM someone's emotional brain. I think there's a lot of evidence that people don't respond to logic-based appeals as logically as one would hope. Often, confronted with strong evidence that contradicts people's deeply-held beliefes or feelings, they'll just double-down on those beliefs. Climate change is the most obvious example. While as a scientist I'm sympathetic to your argument, I think the jury is still out regarding the most effective way to go about convincing people to change their beliefs or behavior. EDIT: typos, reword for clarity

themartorana 12y ago
I read those studies - that in the face of evidence, people cling to their disproven beliefs even more [0]. It has been coined "The Backfire Effect" [1] They were the scariest and most fascinating I've read in a long while. [0] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antivaccination-parents-dig-in-heels-even-after-receiving-medical-info/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antivaccination-pa... [1] (PDF) http://web.archive.org/web/20110511211719/http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bnyhan/nyhan-reifler.pdf http://web.archive.org/web/20110511211719/http://www-persona...

ilaksh 12y ago

It isn't an appeal to emotional sympathy. He is saying that an inordinate amount of our internet activities involve Google services and that isn't healthy for an open internet. He is "appealing" for you to simply analyze your own daily activities to see what percentage involves the open internet versus Google services.

michaelmcmillan 12y ago

Great analysis! I'll remember this the next time someone argues without any evidence other than clever rhetorics.

ds9 12y ago

Somehow I'm missing your point. If sites make requests to Google Analytics, Google APIs, etc., then anyone who looks at those sites and allows the requests is being tracked and data-mined, and is contributing to Google's power as an internet participant, and contributing to widespread dependence on one company. That's fact, not emotion. There is an emotional element in either caring about this or not, so maybe that is what you mean. Also, listing the Google properties like he does probably overstates things for a rhetorical effect - certainly not everyone is such a heavy user of Google services. I would guess that most people online use only a few of them (and that you would demand numbers rather than guesses). Nevertheless the point is sound, though expressed in a hyperbolic way.

ahmedatia 12y ago

OP: actually I didn't mean that literally, but I tried to express how I feel about that and what I see around me ... so what I really meant to look into your daily activities, and see if anything can be replaced by some other alternatives and if so, give it a try but eventually your view/analysis is great.

themartorana 12y ago
Fair enough. I think some research in to the actual market penetration of some of Google's non-search products would make a stronger argument - like Analytics is used in about 49% of all web properties[0] but your point is taken. And it's true, of all the web properties I own, Google is all over them. [0] http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ta-googleanalytics/all/all http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ta-googleanalytics/a...

e40 12y ago

The research is Frontline's "United States of Secrets, Part 2" which aired in the last week or so.

coldtea 12y ago

Two things wrong with what you're saying: He might have used the phrase "Please think for a minute" (...) "you will get to realize that", but right next to that he gave concrete examples of tons of Google services we use everyday. That's evidence of their multitude, variety and importance. Plus, it's not like his text ended there -- he argued his position in other parts of his post too. Second, it's not like "just think and you will realize how right I am" is any kind of brain jiu-jitsu. It's just a manner of speaking -- I've never seen anyone win an argument on an forum discussion using that. >It's not that there isn't evidence of Google being less-than savory - I would argue there is - but I'd research that argument first, not just appeal for emotional sympathies. Probably reading too much (including intent) in an innocent and not very interesting turn of phrase.