Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems • Hacker News Board

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#201

Post by wutbrodo » Sat, Oct 25, 2014, 8:22 AM UTC

Natsu wrote: post #134

hardwaresofton wrote: post #85

Despite all the people that think he sounds like a lunatic, is any of what he is saying a lie? Lots of people who sound like lunatics but aren't telling lies are worth listening to, I think. So, he's putting a lot of "these guys are all evil" spin on it, but then again, all the connections he is making seem to be true. Whether it means Google is in bed with the US government or not is up to the reader (with nudging f…

The biggest problem for me is that it simply doesn't matter if I trust today's Google 100%. The fact is that it's a company and eventually the leaders will die, leave or retire. Even if I claim that Google [today] is 100% pure, honest and ethical, that trust isn't transferable to Google [tomorrow] that will have all of its resources and all of its databanks to mine someday. And that's a problem. Rationally we shouldn…

I think this is an important point that a lot of people miss. An entity having too much power is a concern separate from what you think they'll do with that power: there are always situations where your current understanding of their "morality" will no longer be valid (i.e. coercion by gov'ts as with the NSA, change in leadership as in your example).

People seem to have an intuitive sense of this but don't have the brains to comprehend it so they land up on "Google has the potential to be evil so therefore they're evil now".

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#202

Post by wutbrodo » Sat, Oct 25, 2014, 9:16 AM UTC

nickff wrote: post #60

chiaro wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. That's kind of the catch, isn't it? All the government agencies that do their job with efficacy wouldn't be the ones you'd be made aware of. Only when something goes wrong do you become aware that your local water board performs useful work. To the point though, regulation ensures our planes crash at a rate of less than one per 21,000 years of flight time. Food safety regulations have dropped e.coli poisoning by h…

1. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is actually used on Wikipedia as an example on the regulatory capture page; saying that "[i]n a June 2010 article on regulatory capture, the FAA was cited as an example of "old-style" regulatory capture, "in which the airline industry openly dictates to its regulators its governing rules, arranging for not only beneficial regulation but placing key people to head these reg…

> the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), where there is substantial evidence that it has caused more deaths than it has prevented,

This claim establishes you either as having horribly terrible reading comprehension, being a liar, or being a lunatic. The idea that the FDA has _cost more lives than it saves_ is so laughably insane that I don't even know where to begin. I guess the easiest place to start is the fact that your "sources" say nothing of the sort: the closest they come to you claim is the the a _specific_ amendment that the FDA made 50 years ago "may have cost more lives than it saved". To somehow conclude that applies to the FDA at large seems impossible for anyone with a reading comprehension level higher than the second grade.

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#203

Post by mercer » Sat, Oct 25, 2014, 10:31 AM UTC

alexqgb wrote: post #58

programmarchy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling someone a conspiracy "nut" is not an argument, and doesn't add anything to the conversation besides an ad hominem fallacy. I do agree with your one point that DARPA funding is given out in a seemingly haphazard manner. However, giving companies money is an effective way of exerting influence over them in the future.

Simply calling somebody a nut instead of pointing out the flaws in their argument is a proper example of the ad hominem fallacy. However, taking aim at the argument itself, successfully demonstrating its nuttiness, and concluding that one would have to be a nut to try making such a case is not a failure of reason. Quite the opposite. After all, the ad hominem rule is not some generalized prohibition against personal…

> After all, the ad hominem rule is not some generalized prohibition against personal attacks. It is merely a prohibition against baseless or irrelevant personal attacks

That reminds me of an earlier-posted article, "The Eighth Meditation on Superweapons and Bingo". Very interesting read: http://squid314.livejournal.com/329561.html

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#204

Post by anonbanker » Sat, Oct 25, 2014, 9:59 PM UTC

jlukanta wrote: post #123

anonbanker wrote: post #122

It wasn't until this article that I realized that Eric Schmidt of Google was the same Eric Schmidt of Sun Microsystems that famously said "you have zero privacy anyway. get over it". Why am I supporting Google?

It was actually Scott McNealy who said that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_McNealy

I stand corrected. thank you.

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#205

Post by mikebay » Wed, Oct 29, 2014, 12:22 AM UTC

I really dont like google or they "dont be evil" lies. I believe they are the one of the most dangerous organization.. Call me skeptic or negative, I hope people would use they head and tey to avoid googles services..

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#206

Post by gasull » Wed, Nov 05, 2014, 4:23 AM UTC

xnull2guest wrote: post #142

TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #19

I did not realize what a nut Assange has become. The more there is the danger that he might be forgotten, the more ridiculous his theories of the world. However, you have to think about his target audience. The audience doesn't consist of people who are familiar with things like DARPA grants, and think tanks. For people in the know, this writing will read like lunacy, because they will understand that Assange sees de…

I am his target audience and I know plenty about DARPA grants and think tanks. Assange has read massive amounts of leaked diplomatic cables (remember he ranks among names like Manning and Snowden for leaking documents), and as far as I can tell is very well politically aware and spoken. No, don't look at the (one) mention of DARPA funding. Go look at the content of the diplomatic cable quotes, the fact that Schmidt v…

I am his target audience too and agree with the view that Google is playing a role in the US Foreign Policy. But I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. It all depends on what you're promoting and that Movements.org non-profit the article/book talks about is a pro human rights organization.

So what is Google promoting in its role in the US Foreign Policy? Is Google promoting anything like torture or drone executions? As far as I can tell, no. They are lobbying for things like net neutrality.

I agree with Assange that Movements.org it has "blind spots", but do those blind spots make Google involvement a bad thing? Isn't Google just picking its battles?

All what the article proves is that Google has an agenda. WikiLeaks has an agenda too. I like both agendas and I think they overlap.