[n_io]

Seems odd that someone would weigh in with such an aggressive counterpoint in defence of Google on their own volition… I’m always suspect of comments like these coming from said company’s PR team.

I mean really, “Further I think products like this are actually unethical”? Did you really just jump to the defence of a near 2 trillion dollar company whose business model overtly threatens some of our most fundamental human rights?

[mgraczyk]

Yes, because I think the general content of discussion around this subject is one sided, and I want to give voice to what I consider to be a more centered point of view.

For example, in your comment you take for granted that Google "overtly threatens some of our most fundamental human rights". I could imagine reasonable arguments that Google does some harm in some cases, and it would even be defensible to claim that Google does more harm than good for some groups of people (although I disagree). But the position you take as a given seems extreme to me and conflicts strongly with my conception of "human rights" and "overt".

[kinjba11]

Please tell us how Google "overtly threatens some of our most fundamental human rights" by providing free services? Just saying Google is evil doesn't make a good argument.

[dredmorbius]

As a starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google

There are numerous current (and past) legal cases against Google, including numerous antitrust / anticompetitive cases. Several of those hinge on influence and manipulation through that chief organ of a democratic society, media.

Google's role, and YouTube's specifically, in radicalisation, is rather well documented.

"How YouTube Built a Radicalization Machine for the Far-Right" (2018)

It's a target-rich search: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+youtube+radicalizes&ia=web https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-youtube-pulled-these-men-d...