Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
The conflict of interest that is Google
Renegade:
remember our no-politics policy.. let's not let this thread get too far down the politics hole.
-mouser (November 20, 2010, 12:38 AM)
--- End quote ---
Sorry. It wasn't my intention to make things political. I wanted to outline the background that underlies the topic.
JavaJones:
I really don't understand why there can't be a neutral position. That's what I'm trying to take here. Trying to be objective and stick to facts, evidence, and reason. Like I said, I like what Google provides me, but I'm not blind to its issues nor the simple reality that it is a large corporation and, existing in the US capitalist system, it will naturally tend toward certain negative behaviors.
At the same time I don't want to take the position that big automatically equals bad, or that anyone (or anything) who is successful must be regulated, reduced, resisted, removed for fear of abuse. Excellence should be rewarded, and that's certainly how Google started out. If that's no longer the case, then things should change over time, but I still find Google's search and other services to be pretty much top of the heap. If nobody has solved the spam problem yet, it's hard to be mad at Google alone for that.
- Oshyan
40hz:
In the FWIW Department...
I spent all day trying to find some information on Google and never found it. Then I tried a search engine called...
[Click on the graphic.]
And found what I needed the first try! Guess what was the search that was so difficult...
"Outlook 2010 next unread message"
No kidding, that's all it was and every other iteration I could think of to try. FYI - I have no affiliation with Yippy.
-CodeTRUCKER (November 19, 2010, 11:34 PM)
--- End quote ---
Added Yippee to my search engine choices in FF. Thx for identifying this resource!
You're right. It homes in on certain topics that seem to cause problems for Google.
Renegade:
I really don't understand why there can't be a neutral position. That's what I'm trying to take here. Trying to be objective and stick to facts, evidence, and reason. Like I said, I like what Google provides me, but I'm not blind to its issues nor the simple reality that it is a large corporation and, existing in the US capitalist system, it will naturally tend toward certain negative behaviors.
At the same time I don't want to take the position that big automatically equals bad, or that anyone (or anything) who is successful must be regulated, reduced, resisted, removed for fear of abuse. Excellence should be rewarded, and that's certainly how Google started out. If that's no longer the case, then things should change over time, but I still find Google's search and other services to be pretty much top of the heap. If nobody has solved the spam problem yet, it's hard to be mad at Google alone for that.
- Oshyan
-JavaJones (November 20, 2010, 02:18 AM)
--- End quote ---
I think you're referring to CodeTRUCKER's comment there.
If you accept the historical premises there, then you are forced to take a position. If you reject it, then you aren't. The historical perspective pretty much mandates a heavy dose of skepticism as an agent rises to power.
The two perspectives/actions (from the historical perspective above) are to "open your eyes" or "bury your head in the sand".
If you reject that historical perspective, it just doesn't matter. Those two perspectives/actions are then irrelevant.
In a purely logical world (well, in a certain logical system -- the scientific method that is to be exact), future events are stochastic, and as such, rejection of the historical perspective is rational.
However, remember that the scientific method is exactly that: a method. It is not a prescription for reality or belief. Those underlying fundamentals, or metaphysics, come prior to the scientific method. Some metaphysics preclude the scientific method, where most people's metaphysical beliefs include the scientific method as part.
This is commonly seen in those astrophysicists and cosmologists that you hear about on the cutting edge of science when they have a strong belief in god/God.
However, you cannot get from the scientific method to the historical perspective as outlined above because it precludes the possibility of repeatability. Instead, you are left with philosophical thought experiments. Don't discount philosophy there. Some of the most important concepts in science come from thought experiments. Perhaps one of the most famous of those being Schrodinger's cat.
Grrr... Getting me all worked up again in logic~! :P
It is very hard to have things clear cut though.
Even if you accept some perspectives, you can assign a weighting to them for how they affect your belief system, and if other perspectives are prioritized higher or lower.
Imagine you're a Catholic, vegetarian (for ethical reasons), historian planning to invest in a company for your retirement fund. You're unlikely to invest in Monsanto because of your vegetarian ethical stance. Your background in history may have some influence there, while you being Catholic is likely to be irrelevant to the decision.
Outlining these kinds of belief systems is very important for deeper debate into some issues.
Again, imagine you are a devout, strict Buddhist. That alone would likely prevent you from investing in Monsanto.
If you're more moderate, you're less likely to care and more prone to invest in Monsanto.
We find ourselves along sliding scales in belief systems that contribute to our decisions and other beliefs. Sometimes we are forced to abandon beliefs. Sometimes we develop new ones.
And I managed to entirely avoid politics there, though I did manage to sneak in some religion~! :P (Just messing around~!)
cmpm:
I really don't understand why there can't be a neutral position. That's what I'm trying to take here. Trying to be objective and stick to facts, evidence, and reason. Like I said, I like what Google provides me, but I'm not blind to its issues nor the simple reality that it is a large corporation and, existing in the US capitalist system, it will naturally tend toward certain negative behaviors.
At the same time I don't want to take the position that big automatically equals bad, or that anyone (or anything) who is successful must be regulated, reduced, resisted, removed for fear of abuse. Excellence should be rewarded, and that's certainly how Google started out. If that's no longer the case, then things should change over time, but I still find Google's search and other services to be pretty much top of the heap. If nobody has solved the spam problem yet, it's hard to be mad at Google alone for that.
- Oshyan
-JavaJones (November 20, 2010, 02:18 AM)
--- End quote ---
I think you could exchange 'Google' for multiple corporations in that post JavaJones.
Still have to watch out for the smaller companies as well, in any business.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version