Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

The conflict of interest that is Google

<< < (8/27) > >>

Curt:
Hmm... I don't care too much how it all works. I mean, $20 billion from advertising, is how it works... they're not going to change anything unless they'll make at least the same profit.

What is frustrating me the most is, the limited number of search results (and a consequence of this limit). I can become so infuriated when I first read something like "1.234.567 results", but then they NEVER show you more than approx 1.000 results. And the page I was looking for, was not part of these 1.000 because the subject was just a little too popular for my not-quite-so-popular site to be among the listed results.

This is the exact same path that has been taken by YouTube and so many others. You cannot search for whatever you like, unless you 1) already have visited the wanted page / file before so you maybe can remember what terms to use to narrow the search, or 2) will settle with what answer is already the most popular.

Catch 22, I think.

One consequence is  that too often we can only know what is popular
-and that is an extremely dangerous path for the future!

rxantos:
One thing of monopolies, they are always abused. I guess is just human nature, or more likely corporate nature. A corporation, by nature, is an egoistical being whose only purpose is to devour as much as possible for the longest time possible.

CodeTRUCKER:
<rant>
I hate to say, "I told ya so...," but I did and I remember being raked over the coals by some as a conspiracy buffoon because of my warnings.  Anyone that knows me knows I have had concerns about Google doing exactly this, i.e, having the power to manipulate knowledge and using it for their benefit, for some years now.  I previously pointed out the validity of Lord Acton's profundity.   I have no desire to rub anyone's nose in this and all those that were antagonistic will remain anonymous.  There is no need to try and search this forum for those threads.  Due to Providence (or call it "luck," if you prefer) all of those threads were wiped out a while back by me (the DC staff had nothing to do with those events), but that's all I need to say about that. 

I have no axe to grind, but I hope now I won't be written off as some nut case.  The threats that were real years ago are more real today.  Frankly, I'm not worried near as much about what Larry and Sergey are doing as I am when (not if) some Administration usurps Google's autonomy for less-than-benevolent purposes.  It is only a matter of time and History, itself is my star witness.  "Power corrupts.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely."  Human nature will allow nothing else unless that "power" is kept under good regulation by love.  Ignore these facts and one day you are going to be unpleasantly surprised.  Ask the folks in the Warsaw Ghetto among others.

'Nuff said.   :)
</rant>

I really don't worry about Big G that much anymore.  I don't use it (directly) except on rare occasions.  Have been using the Scroogle Scraper for years.  Every now and then I get a message from them announcing Big G has changed their algorithm.  A day or two later, Scroogle is back online.  I have also had some pretty good success with the old Clusty, which is actually Yippy now.

I wonder if the way Scroogle, (actually, this is the "Scroogle Scraper" site) works has any bearing on what is returned?  I don't think so, but I was wondering if anyone else did?  Anyone know?

Renegade:
+1 CodeTRUCKER.

I have a formal education in logic and argumentation. Conspiracy theories are often dismissed outright for one reason or other, but as of late, I've started to rethink some of the logic and metaphysics behind the general attacks on conspiracy theories (and a range of other topics as are applicable).

I've come to a sort of mid-way where I can see some limitations in the logic used, and some rather hasty uses of logic that fail to address the issues.

It seems to me that very often whether or not there is any intent behind a conspiracy is largely irrelevant. However, it is the intent portion of the conspiracy that is usually attacked, and rather easily.

Historicism has been debunked along with philology, but that doesn't stop people from taking Nietzsche seriously. Among those debunking it are Karl Popper and C. S. Lewis, both intellectual juggernauts not lightly to be dismissed.

Still, it is precisely those patterns in history that in the practical world we see repeated. Logic be damned. It happens. We're talking about inherently stochastic processes, so any degree of logic will eventually meet with some form of paralysis. Logic throws up its hands in defeat in the face of pure chaos (the study of chaos is another matter though). (Incidentally, this is why "brute force" attacks are used -- because strong encryption maximizes the randomness of the stored data and the only approach to it is to start at the beginning of all possibilities and work ones way to the end.)

But those patterns exist. Whether there is intent behind them or not, they are there.

So while we may smugly sit back, confident in our pretty logic that the "conspiracy" is false and nothing more than the ravings of a madman, it doesn't change the reality. Something *is* happening.

As an analogy, consider the typical ways that people think about morality and ethics as being the standard fare for logic and reasoning in the Karl Popper anti-Historicism vein of things. Then consider Carol Gilligan's arguments for relationship-oriented morality and ethics as she puts forth in "In a Different Voice" as being more like the way in which conspiracy logic works. (I am aware of the possible connotations there, so please do not read into that anything more than what I am saying. I am not trying to demean conspiracy logic or relationship-centric morality. I am merely trying to frame the system, or different systems, in a relationship to each other.)

So what we end up with is a matter of perspective or a matter of dealing with situations using different systems.

Any logician worth a damn will tell you that some problems cannot be solved using some systems of logic.

This is detailed in Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

Well, I may be making some assumptions (that it is applicable to humans and/or history) and jumping a few steps, but close enough. For an overview of what I am skipping over see here and here and here. Perhaps the most telling is Penrose's conclusion:

Penrose presents the argument that human consciousness is non-algorithmic, and thus is not capable of being modeled by a conventional Turing machine-type of digital computer.
--- End quote ---

Well, let's just assume that human's are just very good at switching logical systems, and that's their core logical system. Problem solved. :)

Anyways, that's the quick summary on why I believe that quick dismissal of conspiracy theories is premature. (I'm still waffling on a few things, but whatever. I'll make up my mind eventually. That is unless I'm inconsistent. Or maybe because I'm incomplete... ;) )

Tuxman:
BTW, as I recently have read something about "20 years of WWW":
The WWW (Google's reason to exist) was developed on a NeXT. So, maybe, we shall blame Apple?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page