> The author just lays out the facts, then concludes by stating that he is not saying that Page will abuse his power, but simply that he could.
Right, and I think emphasizing nutty conspiracy theories distracts from the more important systemic and gradual, but perhaps less exciting, impact that Google actually has (e.g. on privacy.)
You don't need to resort to conspiracy in order to isolate real ways in which Google has having large -- arguably negative -- impacts on our everyday lives.
> On what basis do you doubt this?
Mostly motive. Google doesn't particularly stand to benefit from building a private army. But also, I used all my tin foil heating up potatoes.
>Right, and I think emphasizing nutty conspiracy theories
I missed the conspiracy theory in the article. Can you point it out? Again, it appeared to be a series of facts illustrating the power of Google/Page and a rational question: Do these facts represent the concentration of too much power in one man's hands?
>distracts from the more important systemic and gradual, but perhaps less exciting, impact that Google actually has (e.g. on privacy.)
Why can't it be both-and vs. either-or? Sure, the privacy issue is clear-and-present. But, keep in mind that when Google first started, we were just happy to have such a powerful search-engine. Perhaps it would have been a "nutty conspiracy theory" then to worry about your privacy. After all, why would Google abuse their access to your data when "Google doesn't particularly stand to benefit from"... abusing its customers' trust?
What seems most counter-intuitive, however, is that you don't trust them with your data, but you trust them with, say, launching satellites and wielding combat-robot technology. I'm not being facetious when I say that it's honestly kind of hard to find the line with you.
>Mostly motive.
Pretty amazing that you think you know Page's motives. Actually, scratch that: we can all surmise. What's amazing is that you're so certain.
Regardless, even with the "purest" motives, it's worth considering whether so much power can lead to unintended consequences.
>* Google doesn't particularly stand to benefit from building a private army.*
Nor does it from abusing your privacy. Or does it?
>But also, I used all my tin foil heating up potatoes.
Apparently, not. The article never stated that Page was building a private army. You did.
I wish you would read what I'm writing instead of what you want me to (not) be writing.
>The article never stated that Page was building a private army. You did.
Oh come on. It's the entire damn point of the article. Without this running narrative, the article's just a list of Google's most successful products and its recent acquisitions. Despite your claim, the article isn't simply a list. And the editorializing is the only reason this article is on the front page of HN. Period.
I realize it's just a rhetorical device, but the article reads still like a conspiracy theory. The only thing this article does is, at best, lump critics of Google's privacy behavior in with conspiracy nuts.
And there's no reason to appeal to fantastical "what-if's" when there are real, demonstrable problems.
> Why can't it be both-and vs. either-or?
It can be (see below), and I think the notion that I somehow implied Google's new expansions cannot be problematic is mostly a fabrication of your indigence.
It's just that I think the narrative of the article is completely ridiculous and trivializes actual avenues for abuse.
What is Google doing to do with military technology? It has 3 options:
1. Use it to create technology which augments its other ventures.
2. Sell to US Govt or our allies.
3. Create a private army or sell to our enemies.
2 and 3 don't worry me for the same reason I don't worry about Boeing taking over the world; military tech is closely monitored and regulated. I don't have to know Page's motives to know that he knows that if he were try try 3, he'd probably end up in prison or dead.
I don't have to be omniscient to assume he probably wouldn't take that kind of risk. And hell, I don't even need to know anything about him to know that if he did, the US military would be able to easily unilaterally shut him down.
Scenario 1 worries me (despite what you've read into my previous comments), but it's really just an additional element of the privacy problem. And the author was too busy telling a cute story to focus on non-insane potential avenues of abuse.
TL;DR: Rhetoric matters, and the rhetoric of this article is unhelpful at best, and possibly harmful.
The point is that ALTHOUGH Google's recent acquisitions might be problematic from a privacy perspective, painting them as something more sinister is a cheap rhetorical device which, at best, provides an easy straw-man for genuine concerns about Google's behavior wrt privacy. (edit: added this in a desperate attempt to explain what I've been trying to say since my first comment)
Also, my position has been consistent. I'm editing so much because I feel the need to write very, VERY clearly for you, because you seem to misinterpret everything that's not extremely carefully stated. {edit: and upon additional review after posting, I realize that there's some tiny thing that you could misinterpret. So I go back an edit; mostly slight rewording}
E.g. the "apparent contradiction" you pointed out isn't at all -- it's a conspiracy theory that the article's author doesn't believe, which makes it a a rhetorical device. Please feel free to point out any others.
{edit: grammar. Also, yeah, triple posts! Is this better?}
{edit: also, I always stop editing after the first comment, but usually not before. The point of indicating edits to prevent diverging discussion and lack of context; as long as there's no reply, I don't see the annoying edit comments as necessary. Sorry if I offended you...}
I didn't think my now deleted grandparent comment was inflammatory, but judging from your responses, I see that I've inadvertently angered you.
In any event, this is not constructive. So, I've deleted the grandparent. No harm intended. Take care.
UPDATE: I see that you've edited and deleted some of your posts, removed expletives, etc. So, perhaps you've calmed a bit. Still, while I appreciate you sharing your views, it's probably best to wrap this thread. No further comments from me will be forthcoming. Take care.
Right, and I think emphasizing nutty conspiracy theories distracts from the more important systemic and gradual, but perhaps less exciting, impact that Google actually has (e.g. on privacy.)
You don't need to resort to conspiracy in order to isolate real ways in which Google has having large -- arguably negative -- impacts on our everyday lives.
> On what basis do you doubt this?
Mostly motive. Google doesn't particularly stand to benefit from building a private army. But also, I used all my tin foil heating up potatoes.