Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
"The More You Use Google, the More Google Knows about you"
Paul Keith:
Well, if you have taken my word in that context I cannot blame you. But the way I have used is not the way you have quoted. "Front line" is the one that is in the front of the line, no militarist connotation there for me.-kartal (April 11, 2010, 03:07 PM)
--- End quote ---
Err... what?
Front line is the one that is in the front of the line... is that some kind of a joke?
If you think that an invisible enemy cannot exists in real life because it is invisible, that creates an oxymoron for the argument. Since it is invisible I cannot even myself deny the non existence of the invisible enemy since it is invisible and impenetrable.
--- End quote ---
Again, what?
Also you have assumed that I have illogical unreal paranoia sunken ideas about facts about google and internet, that tries to put me in a position where my claims are not even credible. In reality I am none of those and have no interest in the game of oxymoron tactics.
--- End quote ---
First of all you just threw two "oxymoronic tactics" in the above quotes.
2nd of all, please prove and quote where I accused you of "illogical unreal paranoia".
I think you just talked to too many others who accused you of that. I neither used the words illogical nor unreal nor does any of my reply in this topic reflect that.
The closest you could spot my usage of paranoia is here:
There should be no "representational" name. It should be always about facts or at least better pattern recognition beyond paranoic stereotypes.
--- End quote ---
...and I wrote "paranoic" and not paranoia and there is no "you are" in that sentence.
Really kartal, you used to be more decent. Maybe my length of time away from DC has caused me to become more sensitive about the regular members but there used to be a time when you were decent enough to just stick to your cause and not misconstrue people's words when they talked to you about subjects like these.
The fact is that when I say there is no invisible enemy I am flat denying any existence of any form of enemy. Google is a concern to me not enemy. I hope this makes it clear.
--- End quote ---
Sorry, that's the third oxymoronic tactics you used.
It's semantical to the point of pointlessness.
kartal:
Paul
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.
JavaJones:
Josh, I'm with you, not real worried about Google. They've been one of the most overall "ethical" corporations around, despite their growth, since their inception more than 10 years ago. Tell me about any other corporation anywhere near their size that has done something like pulling out of a huge target market (China) due (at least in part) to censorship. Sure, you could argue that they just used that as an excuse after they got hacked, and the hacking was the real reason, but that makes just as much sense as the hacking being used as an excuse *internally* (by e.g. Sergey who was always uncomfortable with censored results due to growing up in Russia). So who knows what's correct, but at least we know Google is trying to do a good thing (not censoring results).
I think the concept of a distributed search system is interesting and good, but practical? I think it would be easily and quickly abused and become dysfunctional. And in the end its results would probably be less accurate and useful than e.g. Google. I use Google because it provides good results. Do I know exactly how it works? No. Do I need to? No. It works, I can plainly see that. It finds me useful sites, relevant to my queries. I can try the same search in Bing, or Ask, or other search engines, and they work similarly or worse. Google's search pages are cleaner and easier to use for me so I use them.
In the end I think it really comes down to convenience vs. privacy. Everyone has the right to accept different levels of compromise on those two apparently opposing sides. On the one side you have companies like Google making your Internet life more convenient (not just searching of course), and supermarkets making your shopping more convenient (and collecting your shopping data), and tons of other companies collecting data on everything you do wherever you go. On the other side you have the option of not using the Internet at all, living in a shack in the middle of nowhere, growing your own food, etc. You can choose either extreme, or some middleground, and life your life how it is comfortable for you. For me, my theoretical privacy is not worth so much as to make reasonable convenience not worth the cost in privacy. I can understand how people doing more daring, unconvential, risky, or whatever things with their lives would want more privacy, and I'm glad those people are doing the things they're doing (for the most part), and don't blame them for wanting to protect their privacy more. But for me and I think for most average people, I don't see the point of scattershot, generalized, widespread, constant concern.
- Oshyan
wraith808:
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.
-kartal (April 11, 2010, 07:46 PM)
--- End quote ---
Well, not to poke my nose into an altercation, but what I think when I see 'tinfoil hat thinking' is conspiracy theory... not that someone is crazy. And that's the way I've always seen it used... not to undermine someone's position. :two:
Paul Keith:
Paul
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.-kartal (April 11, 2010, 07:46 PM)
--- End quote ---
Then let me rephrase: That's wrong and tin-foil hat thinking inducing IMO
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)
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version