21–30 of 93 posts
I think the Zerohedge article should have been linked directly, it provides much more information on what happened. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-21/one-statistics-prof... It does indeed seem he was shut down, but it's unclear as to "why" it was done. Google's standard black box in effect. That may be the most frustrating part.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given the importance of email and other online services - should multinational corporations be allowed to be capricious about who they provide service to, and how those users are cut off from their digital lifeline?
Yes, because it's their computers.
I do not believe that some people should be treated more equally than others.
Kinda scary, but if true we should be addressing it as is instead of burying it.
Edit: it looks like Trump has actually had a small increase in popularity
I think the Zerohedge article should have been linked directly, it provides much more information on what happened. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-21/one-statistics-prof... It does indeed seem he was shut down, but it's unclear as to "why" it was done. Google's standard black box in effect. That may be the most frustrating part.
Google needs to get on clarifying this and the reasons behind ASAP because right now it looks like an entire internet presence was shut down due to publishing unpopular math.
"If you show probability work like Hillary having lower election odds, then this is new definition of hate speech." I get that the guy is angry. I would be too if I got locked out of my accounts, but this is a ludicrous accusation -- the new definition of hate speech? "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity." The idea that google is waging war on this guy because of election predictions he made…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both working with the Obama administration and advising the Trump campaign on polling statistics are innocent activities...?
Im not sure what you're trying to imply. No one needs to be completely innocent. And no one is. What's preposterous is shutting someone down for merely showing some statistical evidence of something contrary to a particular narrative
Contrary to some of the other comments, I highly doubt there's any political agenda at play here. More likely, this user inadvertently tripped some automated algorithm somewhere, and then failed the automated appeals process. That said, it's their service and their rules. Don't host data you care about on free services run by capricious multinationals.
Given the importance of email and other online services - should multinational corporations be allowed to be capricious about who they provide service to, and how those users are cut off from their digital lifeline?
Now, it's all well and good to go and ban white supremacists, KKK members, hate groups, etc. It's monumental stupidity to ban an academic with proper credentials. It's even in effective. Even in the most extreme case, his careful scholarly screeds about statistics isn't exactly going to make frothing hordes of racists; not near the same way as banning him without cause, reason or explanation.
It's silly. His twitter shows him writing article headlines in provocative ways (for an academic) but, nothing even close to supporting a group like the KKK but, in this atmosphere and with Google trying mobilize probably thousands of young, probably uneducated (cheap) people review accounts for deletion, it was probably someone who saw one of these procative headlines and marked this blog for deletion without looking or realizing who this person was.
Strangely, the same thing happen to Jordan Peterson not even a month ago. Another academic but, with far more controversial views but, far more outcry came of it and Google reversed it in a few days.
All of this is embarassing for Google who for years has invested in very light touch style of customer service and it's coming back to bite them in the ass.