[lapcat]

> to do the devil's advocate and examine their motivations

These are two different things.

Examining their possible motivations is fine. Consider them, weigh them, criticize them.

But that's not what a so-called "Devil's advocate" does. The Devil's advocate takes just one side, one possible motivation, and argues for that, come what may, possibly insincerely. The Devil's advocate is dogmatic, single-minded, intransigent. When does the Devil's advocate ever admit that they're wrong?

Go back and look at how definitively the Devil's advocacy was made. There's not even a whiff of doubt or questioning. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42974179

[curtisblaine]

> The Devil's advocate takes just one side

He has to, because no one is willing to take that side.

> The Devil's advocate is dogmatic, single-minded, intransigent. When does the Devil's advocate ever admit that they're wrong?

He doesn't need to, because he announces he's the devil's advocate in the first place. Everyone knows that he's taking a contrarian, artificial (and much less popular) position that no one else wants to take.

[lapcat]

> He has to, because no one is willing to take that side.

If we're talking about a small number of Catholic priests deciding on sainthood, then yes. But if we're talking about any other matter of public dispute on social media where self-described devil's advocates pop up, then no. I've never seen one advocating for a position that's unique in the world. Indeed, in the comments on this very HN submission, there are other defenders of Google who are advocating their own opinon and don't pretend to be devil's advocates.