I really do not know why you are stuck at that particular word. I publicly explained what my intention was with my sentence. Google is the frontline example of this particular problem regarding privacy.
You said that "That's wrong and tinfoil hat thinking IMO.", and we pretty much know that "tinfoil hat thinking" is used for undermining people, lightly mentioning that they are crazy enough to believe some crap that is normally by standard unacceptably stupid to believe by normal people. If that is not how you meant it please correct me.
If you want to defend a particular point of view that is fine with me, but please do so with the standards that you praise. Because none of the points you have brought up contributed to the real discussion so far.
The discussion is about privacy, internet, data concentration etc. If you want to discuss my lack of wording skills you can do that in private.
Then let me rephrase: That's wrong and tin-foil hat thinking inducing
i.e. it's the approach (that) and not the character (you) who is wrong or wearing a tinfoil hat. (or if you add the above word, will risk leading to that state of thinking)
I did mean to say "tinfoil hat" but I meant it loosely. I would have used paranoid inducing but that sounds alarmist to me and maybe I should use cult-ish (and I did later on to cement what I mean but obviously that didn't work out)
I felt the tinfoil hat statement is best to define the line between those who are concerned and those who have filled their bias to the point that they simply emphasize the point without even addressing the questions against their bias anymore because they just live in a state where they can continuously justify their concern as being absolutely right and criticisms to it don't get received properly anymore because it's just unfathomable how someone would disagree with their concern. (i.e. resorting to accusations of others rather than discussing the meat of the subject)
I have not added to any real discussion so far because no one has replied to my post so there is nothing to discuss with any specific thing I have said.
The one bit that I added which was a reply to address your point became misconstrued as accusing you of being a paranoid tinfoil hat wearing person even though if you focus on the context of my post, it deals specifically with the subject prior to your next reply.
If you can't spot it, here:
You can't treat non-Google problems as Google problems or you'll fall flat into correlating causation. (data concentration)
It's also cult-breeding behaviour to rely on an "invisible" enemy.
There should be no "representational" name. It should be always about facts or at least better pattern recognition beyond paranoic stereotypes. (internet culture)
Also it's mistaken to think informed and educated people are the key. (internet culture) That's one necessity but if you're fighting an enemy built from invisibility then you're fighting a symbol and not actually doing enough to hurt corporations and corruption. (internet culture + privacy)
Some people may be informed about a certain subject and they may be educated but they also create elitist roadblocks that turn people away. (internet culture) Just look at Stallman and FOSS. (internet culture) The ideal and education is probably there and he made it into a reality that many people know but how many intelligent and informed people ends up switching to say...Chromium because it justifies their convenience while still preserving their ideology? (internet culture/internet ideology + privacy)
Check my 1st and 2nd post. Same thing.
I often do so with the standards I praise and the ones I forgot to do so are often because I rarely notice. I'm not well versed in technology like many of the users here and I am bad at communicating but I often raise my points but it is rarely replied to.
I can't self-convert or contribute to a discussion on my own. If no one replies to it, then there's no point in adding to it.
For example after JavaJones wrote that post I would usually bring up: (and I was going to reply to app with a similar subject but I accidentally closed my tab and it ate up my post - and again the only reply I got was an accusation of my intentions so why bother salvaging that post?)
Convenience + privacy?! No, it's pure convenience ONLY.
Scroogle for example is as easy to use as Google but not only does Google have more market exposure because they venture out of the search business but they are often built by default in browsers.
That's why some can say IE has a monopoly inducing factor by being bundled in Windows because even though it is MS' right to modify their software in what way they like, it cannot be denied that it produces a culture developing stigma that makes it harder to deny or hard for others to compete with unless you build a different ideology like Open Source and only then it's not that Open Source got back a few of the marketshare. It's because Open Source allowed Firefox to gain early traction due to blog lists of extensions and primarily Adblock which Firefox can circumvent because "it is an extension" and not something the browser developers built in. (while at the same time recruiting those who seemingly think it is supporting Open Source because it is an Open Source app and that using an Open Source app to support the ideology is enough to make them think it's helping)
Doesn't mean the solutions or the propositions can't be loopholed as MS showed and doesn't mean the culture won't go against a positive suggestion like that and turn the issue into a laughing stock.
How this relates to search engine discussion is the fact that Google became a privacy monster not because of search but because of their size. Size and culture placement that they have earned that makes it beyond a technology discussion that can be solved by a technological alternative unless it exceeds in convenience and benefits. Privacy? That's just the hump a developer wants to add but it's purely a battle of convenience and exposure.
I could go on and on but the fact is I'm using something like Scroogle because I have no inherent knowledge and reference for actual search engine lingo.
It doesn't mean I don't try but if what I'm saying is not going to get a reply or my reply is going to be misconstrued as a malicious act on someone else and I have to be forced to go away from my points related to the actual topic, what do you expect me to do as far as contributing to a real discussion?
I've been here long enough. You probably know I write some long topics that don't get replies or even replies that don't get any attention maybe because it's just plain ignorant or because I'm no good at communicating my intent.
...but there's no way for me to learn by shutting up. I can only allow myself to be educated by allowing my opinions to be challenged. (not challenged as having my post be accused when I'm actually replying to a topic and not attacking a person but challenge as in someone actually looking into the points I raised beyond certain keywords and then replying to those points)
If I'm not adding to the discussion, I'm not going to learn to do so by shutting up.
Only way I can is to keep trying and modifying how I say things INCLUDING clarifying something because the other person pointed out where I lost them. (and them doing that because they are actually giving me some points I can refute and not just blanket stating something I supposedly said)
Anything else on the way I post or contribute to a topic is out of my control.
If I knew the magical way to be charismatic or knowledgeable in such a way that I will always be guaranteed as adding to a discussion, I wouldn't have to deal with someone accusing me of playing on their lack of word skills especially when I'm the one who lacks the word skills or knowledge to "actually contribute to a discussion".
Even here, I struggle to make my point because I simply have no clue how much else I can add so that I won't get accused of not adding to a discussion. If I write too long, it's not going to be read. If I over-simplify I risk being misconstrued.
Even now, I don't want to turn this about me and I would just as like to return to the topic but come on, is there any recovery point after the TS of a topic says you brought up no points that contributed to the discussion of a topic? I can't think of any. That's why if you think this is about your lack of word skills even after I've written so many lines to clarify this, then I'm sorry. Not only can't I steer it back to the points of the topic because those points apparently made no contribution at all, at the same time I have to make one last reply about me and not the topic because it's the impression of my character that's on the line here.