3 ms·

Sarcasm does not further a debate. If you want to froth at the mouth and show your agenda, sure, but not actually having constructive discussions. Posting enor

by personZ 12y ago

Sarcasm does not further a debate. If you want to froth at the mouth and show your agenda, sure, but not actually having constructive discussions. Posting enormous gripe lists is not useful on any board, relevant or not, even minus the comically skewed narrative provided with them. In this case it wasn't even original but instead is a "create a puppet account and paste the complaint list again" tactic, which is just boorish and cowardly. Go make a "whygoogleisevil.com" site and casually reference that in a legitimate post, sure, but not this. And your whole "it's a cult" angle is ridiculous. If you convince yourself that people who find this strong polarization unconstructive must be in awe of Google, you have a very binary view of a complex world.

csirac2 12y ago
Edit: you have to take some of the blame for the sarcastic tone. It seems to be a result of the inability in this discussion to consider that discussion of Google's shitty aspects (there is much that has been good), on an article that is about these shitty things, could really be a thing. Enumerating badness might (?) be inelegant but it's a wholly valid thing to do in a discussion. I started to realize that google had gone down the "let's be like Microsoft" path when, among other things, it flung itself head-first into the whole schema.org patent fiasco. It made me wonder if Google itself would have been successful if its rivals Yahoo & friends had tried to pull something similar back in the day. Discussing the fact that Google's maneuverings are barely distinguishable from other giants in history is not "Frothing at the mouth". Especially forcing Android-using vendors to ship chrome - I challenge you to think of a more 1990s Microsoft scenario! However, not that I have time or energy to care - it just seems like the natural lifee-cycle of successful companies. Back in the 1990s I had the energy to care, and I enjoy working in/on/with Linux/BSD today but believe me when I say I just can't find the same energy to pick apart google (or Microsoft!) in the same way today. And yet even I can see it's obvious that there is at the very least a case to say that Google's dominance could hurt the web. Hence the article. Hence this discussion. "Frothing at the mouth", "binary view" indeed.

by personZ 12y ago

csirac2 12y ago

Edit: you have to take some of the blame for the sarcastic tone. It seems to be a result of the inability in this discussion to consider that discussion of Google's shitty aspects (there is much that has been good), on an article that is about these shitty things, could really be a thing. Enumerating badness might (?) be inelegant but it's a wholly valid thing to do in a discussion. I started to realize that google had gone down the "let's be like Microsoft" path when, among other things, it flung itself head-first into the whole schema.org patent fiasco. It made me wonder if Google itself would have been successful if its rivals Yahoo & friends had tried to pull something similar back in the day. Discussing the fact that Google's maneuverings are barely distinguishable from other giants in history is not "Frothing at the mouth". Especially forcing Android-using vendors to ship chrome - I challenge you to think of a more 1990s Microsoft scenario! However, not that I have time or energy to care - it just seems like the natural lifee-cycle of successful companies. Back in the 1990s I had the energy to care, and I enjoy working in/on/with Linux/BSD today but believe me when I say I just can't find the same energy to pick apart google (or Microsoft!) in the same way today. And yet even I can see it's obvious that there is at the very least a case to say that Google's dominance could hurt the web. Hence the article. Hence this discussion. "Frothing at the mouth", "binary view" indeed.