LEAKED VIDEO: Google Leadership's Dismayed Reaction to Trump Election |

  • Thread starter Thread starter exnihilo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JulianN said:
Regarding pollution, despite what @Theo520 indicates, Trump has been been dismantling the air and water standards that have led to reduced carbon emissions and cleaner water. Those reduced carbon numbers won’t stay down by themselves.
Click to expand...
Evidence please!

And don’t cite Obama standards that were never implemented and were already slapped down by the courts.
 
Shakuhachi said:
No one seems to be noticing the growing deficit.

The U.S. Federal deficit was $587 billion in Obama’s last year and it grew to $666 billion in Trump’s first year of his presidency.
Click to expand...
I think plenty are noticing this. My hope is that Congress will have the will to reduce entitlement spending with a strong economy, a big No-No during a poor economy.

Again, our corp tax rates only went to the point to make us internationally competitive with other OECD countries.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Great injustice”?
Click to expand...
Yes, it’s purpose is to rip apart that company. Here at the moment there is a deliberate contamination of strawberries. So no one is buying, stock is recalled and thrown out, the farms in question are targeted. This “leaked video” nonsense is hoping to achieve the same result.
Tis_Bearself said:
Cabal”?
Click to expand...
Yes, leaked video, secret cabal, unsavoury hugging, what other goings on are happening now in this untrustworthy cabal, type propaganda.

It’s a pure propaganda action.
 
Last edited:
When it comes to companies I’m worried about, Google is pretty much at the bottom of the list. And even in the unlikely event that they went down in flames tomorrow, their people would find new jobs in about 1 day and three other companies would spring up to take their place.
 
exnihilo said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
There is no evidence of coercion being exercised in that meeting video.
Click to expand...
I’d say the opinions themselves are coercive. If your boss says he is ‘deeply offended’ by the person you voted for then the employee should feel frightened.
Click to expand...
I would say not.
LeafByNiggle said:
There is no evidence that the opinions expressed in the meeting has in any way affected the search algorithms.
Click to expand...
Oh there is evidence. There isn’t proof but there is evidence.

More importantly an executive said they wil do what they can to advance ‘really important values’ which in context means things which counter the election of Trump.
Click to expand...
So?
LeafByNiggle said:
Just demonizing the other side. I suspect that Trump supporters are now throwing around words like “bigoted” and “hateful” in order to devalue the words so that those words don’t sting as much when they are applied to them.
Click to expand...
Calling voters for Trump ignorant, poor hicks is bigotry and hateful.
Click to expand...
It would be, but the Google exec didn’t do that.
 
exnihilo said:
It would also be reasonable to suspect that Google works against Trump’s agenda.
Click to expand...
That’s a bit of a stretch. Google Search, Google News, and YouTube probably the three most notable products that could let anti-Trump bias seep in, aren’t being programmed entirely by these executives. They’re worked on by very large teams that, based on my experience at a similar company, probably aren’t as driven by an anti-Trump ideology as much as Trump supporters like to think they are. You could probably even find plenty of Trump supporters on those products.
Inisfallen said:
I don’t care about their political leanings, but, as someone once said, “if it’s free, you’re the product.”
Click to expand...
I really hate this argument.

For one, it reduces people down to a few bytes of data on a computer that may not even be usable for determining their name. It’s a strangely dehumanizing way to think about people while claiming to be less dehumanizing. And it is one mentality probably not shared by Google or Facebook.

Second, it operates under the assumption that these companies sell your data. Maybe that is the case for some, but at least in Google’s case, it isn’t. Google can use data to better target ads, which has a greater chance of driving traffic to the ad owner, which makes them more likely to continue using Google to drive their ads, which means more money for Google. However, that entire process never requires Google to make that data known to the ad owner, just the fact that someone came to the site via an ad.

Third, it ignores the actual cost: inconvenience. It’s inconvenient to watch an ad on YouTube, which is why Google charges to remove them. It’s inconvenient to listen to ads while listening to music, which is why Google and Spotify charges to remove them. It is inconvenient to have ads take up space on screen, which is why some companies offer subscriptions to remove them or replace them with more relevant content. Do you notice a pattern? It’s the inconvenience you’re paying to remove, not the data collection. Google will still collect data whether or not you pay despite the fact that it holds no monetary value to them. Why? Because it is still very valuable to them in offering a better product than their competitors.

So I guess if we’re going to discuss this business model, it would be better to discuss whether or not it is ethical to make a less inconvenient product for free and a more convenient one for those who have the ability and desire to pay.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
their people would find new jobs in about 1 day
Click to expand...
Of course it takes months to get a job there! (In actuality, if everything goes smoothly, it should take about 6-8 weeks from initial contact to getting an offer. If everything doesn’t go smoothly, well…let’s just say that I started interviewing with them in early April. I still don’t know if I’m getting a job.)
 
This doesn’t make it right or Christian to attempt to destroy a company like this
 
Once again, you and I are going to have to agree to disagree.
I work in the software field currently.
Google is not “being destroyed”.
If Google fails, it will be because of its own stupidity (see also Yahoo et al) or because the market dynamics have changed.
If you want to sit around worrying about some software company, have at it…I save my worry for the manufacturing companies that don’t have young, fluid workforces and are really hard to replace once they’re gone.
Bye.
 
You miss my point about the point of the words being used in this argument.

The way this is being painted. It does not matter what company this is. It’s the propaganda and the language being used here.

I have no trouble disagreeing with people 🙂
 
Google is making $$$ so if you don’t like them then don’t use their products 😂

Meanwhile…

What happened to Trump steaks?

Google it 😉
 
MonteRCMS said:
Replace Google with DuckDuckGo.
Click to expand...
I’ve done that but DuckDuckGo does not provide as good search results as Google. (What I really like for search is a library card catalog; then I control the search, not some algorithm.)

As for the business model, if it’s ad based, then yes, we are the product. It’s our clicks that are being sold. I think a better business model would be a subscription based search engine with no advertising at all. I am becoming more and more convinced that advertising will destroy the internet just like it’s destroyed television.
 
JimG said:
I’ve done that but DuckDuckGo does not provide as good search results as Google.
Click to expand...
That’s of course the downside to DuckDuckGo’s model: If you aren’t collecting data and doing at least a little tracking, you can’t tailor search results the same way Google can.
JimG said:
if it’s ad based, then yes, we are the product. It’s our clicks that are being sold.
Click to expand...
Humans aren’t clicks on a computer.
 
JimG said:
No, we aren’t, except when it comes to internet ad-based business models.
Click to expand...
Except you are the one reducing humans to that. As far as I’m aware, companies like Google and Facebook haven’t talked in any way to indicate that they see humans as mere clicks.
 
I’m sure that Google and Facebook don’t see humans as mere clicks, but their advertisers have no other way to measure an ad’s effectiveness. Google is pretty good at analytics. It can tell advertisers not only which ads produced clicks, but which clicks resulted in sales, plus a lot more. It’s a business model wherein the internet users are the products. Advertisers—the real customers, are paying for our attention. Internet companies are pretty good at measuring that, so they can assure advertisers that they are getting their money’s worth.

I wonder what a Google business model would look like if people using the search engine were the real customers paying or the service. If the search engine is really useful, is it worth paying for?

I can’t even discuss Facebook, because Facebook drives me crazy, and I can only tolerate it for limited periods.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top