|
|
|
|
|
|
by Avamander
1046 days ago
|
|
|
> I wish this didn't need to be explicitly specified, but "someone else could harm people" isn't a defense for you actively harming people A statistical inevitability is a defense for something. The world doesn't have perfect things. Stop trying to frame something bad just because it isn't perfect. If you manage to stop that, then it would be possible to have a constructive discussion. |
|
|
no it isn't, and also being screwed over by the leading search provider isn't a statistical inevitably anyways
> Stop trying to frame something bad just because it isn't perfect. If you manage to stop that, then it would be possible to have a constructive discussion.
stop trying to justify the means with the ends, more specifically trying to justify google actively harming people (sorry to break the news to you, but harming people IS bad), just because they also happened to do a good thing, when they have the non-mutually-exclusive option to harm people less, and instead choose to avoid that option
if you manage to stop that, then it would be possible to have a constructive discussion about how google can harm people less, since currently it seems like you're okay with google actively harming people any amount less than or equal to the amount of "good" they claim to do (with the determination made by you personally, natch), even when they could choose not to