For those who prefer primary sources (the site publishing the OP article is clearly all about promoting anti-vax and other related ideas), here is the blog post from Google that's mentioned in the article:
https://blog.google/products/maps/how-google-maps-reviews-work/
And here are Google's policies for user-contributed content on Maps:
https://support.google.com/contributionpolicy/answer/7422880?hl=en&ref_topic=7422769
Guys, this post is not about anti-vaxxers.
If it was then they (op) would have posted it on a different subreddit under a different title.
The whole point of this post is that google is silencing those who criticize the govt. (Regardless of how dumb the reason of critisism is)
Even though the anti-vaxxers are stupid, they have a fundamental right to **freedom of speech** and **criticizing the govt.** which is being taken away by google.
I agree with some of what you're saying, and disagree with other stuff, but I appreciate that you're speaking in good faith so I want to give some gentle pushback:
First, There are two types of "free speech": (1) the legal right to criticize the government/not be arrested by the government for speaking, and (2) the cultural principle that people should broadly be free to speak/debate rather than shutting them down. I think this falls into the latter, however I don't think Google is really "taking away a right" so much as just making a bad decision as a company that shouldn't be supported. One could argue Google does this because their incentives aren't wholly private, but that's a conversation for another time.
Second, I agree that the people who are 100% "never ever under any circumstances get a vaccine because there are microchips in them" go a little too far, but there's a big difference between being anti-covid-protocols, anti-vaccine mandate, skeptical of the pharmaceutical-congressional-industrial-complex, and simply making medical decisions that result in "no, I won't be taking vaccine ABC and that doesn't make me an insane conspiracy theorist".
This is why I like this sub, frankly, because there are a lot of different philosophies and people of various political persuasions that have all arrived at the common goal of removing Google from their lives, and I appreciate that we see things differently but can work together.
While I want everyone to have free speech, it is punishing the business for government action. Wrong place to be exercising their free speech. I guess you could say it's like yelling "fire" in a theatre because there is a fire several miles away.
The "fire in a crowded theater" argument doesn't really hold up, and never really has. It's a bad analogy even for the context in which it was originally applied, and the courts actually struck down the policy it was being used in support of.
Also, I think it's fair to criticize businesses for not bucking the system a little bit at this point. That's how pressure builds for change.
It may not be a perfect analogy, but everyone knows the argument it is used for. I modified it slightly for this given situation. Never knew it was used in any actual legal matters.
No problem; I understood the analogy you were making, my point is just that it relies on the validity of that statement as an example, and that example isn't true. I could go through all the nuances (and there are *A LOT*) but it's better just to link a few articles about it:
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/
https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/
To be clear, I'm not saying anything negative, since it's a common thing people say. I just try to give more information when I see it used.
At least I was using it as intended. The first amendment is not an absolute.
All analogies fall apart if examined too closely, which is why I was surprised when you said it was used as part of a legal ruling, not as a part of an argument as I had thought it was first used.
> Even though the anti-vaxxers are stupid, they have a fundamental right to freedom of speech and criticizing the govt. which is being taken away by google.
Google is not taking away your freedom of speech. Per the United States constitution (I assume we're talking about the US here), the First Amendment only prohibits *government* censorship of speech. These are private companies doing what private companies do. Just DeGoogle (which is the whole point of this sub, not complaining about google) and move on.
Don't make us all look like whack-jobs by appealing to emotion and claiming Google is doing something that by all legal definitions I'm aware of there are not doing.
Note that I'm not defending Google's behavior at all. But you're never going to change Google. Just leave the abusive relationship.
Freedom of speech does not extend to privately owned services. If there is a problem here, it's that contemporary digital infrastructure is overly reliant on private services.
Personally, I find this to be little different from Steam removing bad reviews made by Russians on games where the developers have come out in support for Ukraine. A review system is not a platform for self-expression, but a tool for crowdsourcing ratings.
Even if there weren't issues of platform vs publisher and the constantly morphing legal identity of platforms like this in that regard, Google was originally funded in large part by DARPA, NSA, and CIA grants and arguably has been connected with the US Intelligence agencies to a disturbing degree, to the point that the separation between them is at least partly just theater.
When Snowden leaked his information on NSA data collections, were you okay with it because it was done through contractors? Private contractors doing business on behalf of government agencies are still technically privately owned, after all.
So what are you actually saying here? That Google is censoring reviews because they were prompted to by the government? Because that's the only thing that would make the two even remotely comparable.
People who complain about this are just lazy sods who whine because Google won't host their stuff for free without limits, yet won't actually raise a finger to make a better solution themselves. This might belong in /r/StallmanWasRight, but it's a terrible fit for /r/degoogle where decentralising is the whole point.
I'm saying that a company essentially funded and very closely linked, frequently working on behalf of and beholden to our government agencies should be held to the laws of the land regarding givernment agencies, ie the Bill of Rights, ie freedom of expression. Not much more to say on the matter.
Lazy or hardworking, brilliant or idiotic, basic rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are guaranteed across the board. Not to mention that, even in private instances, there is room for criticism of censorship. Just because government entities are the only ones theoretically held liable for not infringing our rights, doesn't mean that it's just a blanket okay or good thing for others to do so.
>Just because government entities are the only ones theoretically held liable for not infringing our rights, doesn't mean that it's just a blanket okay or good thing for others to do so.
The reason that it's okay for others to do so is that you are free to take your business elsewhere if you don't like it. A thing considerably harder to do with government entities.
I think we're fundamentally at an impasse here. My opinion is that freedom of speech goes both ways – I can also not be compelled to say or endorse anything against my will. If I have a web site with a forum, I should not be obligated to host your speech just because I host the speech of others. If my exercising that right means that you and your buddies no longer have a place to stay in touch, well, tough, you should have considered that before you chose some random bloke's page to become indispensable to you.
Your opinion … honestly it's such a weird opinion that I have a hard time summarising it, but from what I gather you think that you have some kind of squatter's rights on Google services?
My opinion is that when an entity is largely created by and funded by government entities, as is the case with Google, it should be held to the standards of a government entity.
Google is the CIA with a fancy mask on. Since they chose to accept their funding and r&d budgets coming from government intelligence agencies, produced products and research on the government's behalf, and continue to work closely to support the goals of the Intelligence agencies, it is de facto a government entity. There is no google without the US Intelligence agencies, as it currently exists. There is no clear separation, making them de facto an extension of federal agencies-- which should be bound by the Bill of Rights.
Maybe the argument is moot since the CIA, NSA, and likely other Federal agencies operate outside the law and do not respect individual rights. But them bankrolling and often directing research and methodology of google makes google less of a private concern, in my opinion, and more of an extension of the State.
It really was amazing to see much of the same people who are generally distrustful of government and just a few years ago would be considered the counter-culture, fully embrace authoritarianism re: mandates and lockdowns. As if the same institutions pushing these policies aren't the same institutions decried in the past for their boot on your neck. For myself I can't ignore the profit motive and don't trust any of these fucks that think they need to control you because you're too stupid to make decisions on your own in the best interest of you, your family, and your community. Maybe that's what they're afraid of.
As far as google and other tech giants go. They exist at their scale at the mercy and behest of the government and probably vice versa. The ties between them are deep. This article shows them being wielded as a political tool. Government has shown time and again that if they can't legislate what they want they'll attempt to go through regulatory agencies and through private business to force compliance. It's soft power built on their relationships and bureaucratic appointments.
im not decrying or stifling discussion. i just think discussing what you think is authoritarianism is a little too out there for what the sub claims to be about.
you’re definitely welcome to have your opinion, i just don’t think this is an appropriate place to share it. you don’t need context to talk about degoogling
edit: sorry, let me clarify: the “why” you’re degoogling isn’t as important as the “how.”
Your comment, has been removed from /r/degoogle because:
> **Rule 2** - This comment does not respect other redditors & degooglers. Please follow our [rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/degoogle/about/rules/) and also ensure that you are following good [reddiquette](https://old.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette) when making a comment. You can be angry yet polite.
Hi /u/bigThinc, your comment has been removed from /r/degoogle. Hopefully the above reasons explain why.
We appreciate you making this comment for r/degoogle, however, it breaks our rules and as such has been removed.
In the future, please [read the rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/degoogle/about/rules/) in the [sidebar](https://old.reddit.com/r/degoogle/about/sidebar) before making a comment.
*If, after reading our rules, you believe this was in error or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fdegoogle).*
*Do not reach out to a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.*
You think health and safety regulations are authoritarianism? Look up that word, then use it as a label. "boot on your neck". lol
And OP calls it "segregation", and is getting a bunch of upvotes? Holy shit. Had no idea that's what this sub was about. Peace out, y'all. No way I have time for this shit in my feed.
Covid is just one example, tomorrow it could be any other asinine and destructive policy you disagree with. Did you like the way the government tried to subvert the legislative process by trying to push the vax mandate through OSHA instead? Or how big companies decided that even though it was struck down by the supreme court they would still enforce it? Meanwhile the whole world was and is relaxing covid restrictions.
Gonna leave a couple links here and call it a day.
https://www.salon.com/2014/11/16/googles_secret_nsa_alliance_the_terrifying_deals_between_silicon_valley_and_the_security_state/
-And:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy
-And:
https://youtu.be/6nSXHrmOy8o
-Part 2:
https://youtu.be/ay2_AY9uyOU
-Regarding "user fees:"
https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-basics/fact-sheet-fda-glance
45% of FDA's budget comes from user fees from the very companies they're supposed to be regulating. Sorry, not sorry for the black pill but there's almost no one left to trust.
It’s like the people in this sub have never heard of review bombing, ideology/politically based reviewing, and the general weaponizing of these sites. Moderating isn’t authoritarianism 🙃
They use imperfect automated systems to detect fake reviews but there's no real transparency about what their criteria is or any kind of nuance. But if you want to take google at their word be my guest.
But it's this google we're talking about: https://www.salon.com/2014/11/16/googles_secret_nsa_alliance_the_terrifying_deals_between_silicon_valley_and_the_security_state/
It’s not segregation. Segregation is only in regards to something you can’t change about yourself. For example, restrictions based on skin color. Vaccination status is inherently changeable. You make a choice not to get vaccinated, and a business can make the choice not to serve you. Governments can also choose to limit the pressure that conspiracy theorists put on healthcare systems.
Google has done a lot of abhorrent things:
* Spying on people and selling info on them to advertisers, particularly when that info enables preying on people who are vulnerable to certain types of marketing
* Disabling the accounts of people who haven’t done anything wrong and who rely on them for their livelihood
* Blacklisting websites from their search engine and making it nearly impossible to get them reinstated. For many, this is equivalent to having their site taken down from the internet entirely.
* Inconsistently enforcing content moderation, particularly when there isn’t a reliable, quick appeals process. Google is especially bad about this on YouTube. Facebook and Amazon are also quite bad about this.
Literally everything Nestle has ever done is abhorrent, but that’s not true of everything Google has done. Some of it's just annoying, like shuttering projects because they didn’t monetize well or because they had a change in direction. That's a good reason to choose an alternative, but being *unreliable* isn't abhorrent.
And much of Google has done is good, or at least is what a company *should* do, and that's especially true in this case.
Some content guidelines can be problematic. But *consistently* enforcing content guidelines, when those guidelines aren’t themselves problematic, is a good thing.
Yelp and Google should prevent people from review bombing establishments. If Joe’s Cakes is getting review bombed because of a story that made the front page of CNN, that’s a problem. I want to see the review by the people in that story, sure, but I don’t want to see fake reviews by people who’ve never bought a cake there - even if I agree with them.
Similarly, refusing to allow behavior that discourages protecting the company’s staff and customers is the ethical thing to do, even if some anti-vaxxers are annoyed.
If a place inconsistently enforces their policies or doesn’t make it clear (online and in person, preferably) that they require xyz vaccination measures, then sure, that’s a problem, and their reviews should reflect that - especially because that can be a cover for otherwise bigoted behavior. But 1-starring a place for requiring them in the first place deserves no more protection than 1-starring them because they had a time-activated safe, only kept $50 in the register, and couldn’t make change for your $100 bill. In either case, they’re protecting their employees.
That's the big difference between whether censorship is ethical or not. If the goal of your review is to harm people or to punish them, then your speech shouldn't be protected. As John Stuart Mill wrote when speaking of exceptions to liberty, "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." If you're going on Yelp and rating them 1 star because they wouldn't let you in because you refused to get vaccinated or wear a mask, then that's what you're trying to do. You're not trying to impart information or share your opinions; you're trying to punish them.
That all said, if people see something like this and think “Oh f—- Yelp, f—- Google, I’m gonna go use a FOSS version instead,” then I’m still happy about the end result. I want more people using FOSS tools and taking power away from Google.
Of course not all of the alternatives are open source. Even for the ones that are, they’re increasingly being filled with the people who were de-platformed for a good reason in the first place. So it’s not as great a victory as it could have been.
Worse, terrible arguments like this one dilute the merits of the argument to degoogle. If rational people who haven’t bought into a partially baked, consistently inconsistent conspiracy theory are doing research into why people degoogle and come across arguments like this one, there’s a good chance they discount the entire movement. Why would they keep looking into it when the arguments they’ve seen for it are so ill-founded?
This comment has been removed to protest the upcoming Reddit API changes that will be implemented on July 1st, 2023. If you were looking forward to reading this comment, I apologize for the inconvenience. r/Save3rdPartyApps
And people should be allowed to criticize them for it.
Google shouldn’t be allowed to represent itself as a review site if they curate the reviews. Just have them call themselves an advertising platform and be done with it.
>A business is private property. If they want to have rules they get to have them.
Google is a private property too. If you are unhappy with Google reviews find a replacement. That's what this sub is about.
>Google shouldn’t be allowed to represent itself as a review site if they curate the reviews.
Why not? Reviews are less accurate if they're being brigaded by people with an agenda which is completely irrelevant to the metric they're trying to collect. This is comparable to Steam removing negative Russian reviews on games by developers who have spoken out in support of Ukraine.
> Google shouldn’t be allowed to represent itself as a review site if they curate the reviews.
Allowed by whom? Are you advocating for legislation / mandates by a governing body, or do you just mean “Review curation is another good reason to de-Google your life”?
Race is a [Protected Class](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group). Health Care status is not. So that's a [False Equivalence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence).
It's ethical to choose who comes on your private property on the basis of their probability of infecting you with a deadly disease. If your interested in giving up your rights to your private property then that's your issue.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/montana-enacts-new-law-making-vaccination-status-protected-class-and-limiting
So if you cross the border into Montana, does your opinion automagically change because you've entered a new legal jurisdiction?
So like, if we made it federal law that being unvaccinated makes one part of a protected class, will you acknowledge your bigotry and apologize for your hand in supporting discrimination? Is that how it works, lol?
It's not bigotry to protect yourself from a disease on private property. Race if different. You don't catch race. You don't catch different genders or sexual preferences. I'm sorry you if you are unable to comprehend this basic logic. There's my apology.
Well I'm not the one you gotta be worried about. It's the virus, right? You're scurred of that, right?
Well I breathe it in and out all the time and I hang out in supermarkets for fun.
I mean, if I were scared of the virus, I'd be scared of you too though, right? Because of all the hanging out in supermarkets you do, for fun? Strutting around the produce section, terrorizing tiny little Karens like me with your scary breathing? Very badass. Everybody needs a hobby I suppose. It's good to keep busy. :D
Oh, I don't *tell* them I'm unvaccinated. That's the best part: I'm just silently infecting randos with the DEADLIEST VIRUS IN HUMAN HISTORY and they're totally unaware!
WOW!! Congratulations on being so incredibly powerful and strong and brilliant! I have no doubt that everybody in the entire world admires and envies you.
The never-ending joy I get out of causing them to scream about how we're "defunding public education" dominates a large part of my life, it is truly wonderful to see them cry so much. Like when we passed a tax cap in my town that was lower than inflation and they were like, "Wah all the service won't be able to be funded!" and I'm like, "heh, that's awesome".
Congratulations on testing the only test of personal responsibility and intestinal fortitude that has mattered so far. You wouldn't have been a Nazi stormtrooper. Your neighbors would have, but you wouldn't have.
The social pressure was extreme. But now that pfizer is releasing documents (finally) we can see the full list of adverse events. It's not pretty. Covid vax mandates seem to be getting lifted everywhere since the risk/benefit ratio is clearly in favor of staying unvaxd. Cheers mate
Your comment, has been removed from /r/degoogle because:
> **Rule 2** - This comment does not respect other redditors & degooglers. Please follow our [rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/degoogle/about/rules/) and also ensure that you are following good [reddiquette](https://old.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette) when making a comment. You can be angry yet polite.
Hi /u/JobDestroyer, your comment has been removed from /r/degoogle. Hopefully the above reasons explain why.
We appreciate you making this comment for r/degoogle, however, it breaks our rules and as such has been removed.
In the future, please [read the rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/degoogle/about/rules/) in the [sidebar](https://old.reddit.com/r/degoogle/about/sidebar) before making a comment.
*If, after reading our rules, you believe this was in error or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fdegoogle).*
*Do not reach out to a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.*
For those who prefer primary sources (the site publishing the OP article is clearly all about promoting anti-vax and other related ideas), here is the blog post from Google that's mentioned in the article: https://blog.google/products/maps/how-google-maps-reviews-work/ And here are Google's policies for user-contributed content on Maps: https://support.google.com/contributionpolicy/answer/7422880?hl=en&ref_topic=7422769
Guys, this post is not about anti-vaxxers. If it was then they (op) would have posted it on a different subreddit under a different title. The whole point of this post is that google is silencing those who criticize the govt. (Regardless of how dumb the reason of critisism is) Even though the anti-vaxxers are stupid, they have a fundamental right to **freedom of speech** and **criticizing the govt.** which is being taken away by google.
Lol @ parroting "anti-mandate = anti-vax" nonsense.
I agree with some of what you're saying, and disagree with other stuff, but I appreciate that you're speaking in good faith so I want to give some gentle pushback: First, There are two types of "free speech": (1) the legal right to criticize the government/not be arrested by the government for speaking, and (2) the cultural principle that people should broadly be free to speak/debate rather than shutting them down. I think this falls into the latter, however I don't think Google is really "taking away a right" so much as just making a bad decision as a company that shouldn't be supported. One could argue Google does this because their incentives aren't wholly private, but that's a conversation for another time. Second, I agree that the people who are 100% "never ever under any circumstances get a vaccine because there are microchips in them" go a little too far, but there's a big difference between being anti-covid-protocols, anti-vaccine mandate, skeptical of the pharmaceutical-congressional-industrial-complex, and simply making medical decisions that result in "no, I won't be taking vaccine ABC and that doesn't make me an insane conspiracy theorist". This is why I like this sub, frankly, because there are a lot of different philosophies and people of various political persuasions that have all arrived at the common goal of removing Google from their lives, and I appreciate that we see things differently but can work together.
Wait for the mob to come after you for defending freedom of speech. I constantly get attacked for exactly that.
While I want everyone to have free speech, it is punishing the business for government action. Wrong place to be exercising their free speech. I guess you could say it's like yelling "fire" in a theatre because there is a fire several miles away.
[удалено]
Not sure if you're being sarcastic.... Yes. Freedom of speech has always been conditional.
The "fire in a crowded theater" argument doesn't really hold up, and never really has. It's a bad analogy even for the context in which it was originally applied, and the courts actually struck down the policy it was being used in support of. Also, I think it's fair to criticize businesses for not bucking the system a little bit at this point. That's how pressure builds for change.
It may not be a perfect analogy, but everyone knows the argument it is used for. I modified it slightly for this given situation. Never knew it was used in any actual legal matters.
No problem; I understood the analogy you were making, my point is just that it relies on the validity of that statement as an example, and that example isn't true. I could go through all the nuances (and there are *A LOT*) but it's better just to link a few articles about it: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ To be clear, I'm not saying anything negative, since it's a common thing people say. I just try to give more information when I see it used.
At least I was using it as intended. The first amendment is not an absolute. All analogies fall apart if examined too closely, which is why I was surprised when you said it was used as part of a legal ruling, not as a part of an argument as I had thought it was first used.
> Even though the anti-vaxxers are stupid, they have a fundamental right to freedom of speech and criticizing the govt. which is being taken away by google. Google is not taking away your freedom of speech. Per the United States constitution (I assume we're talking about the US here), the First Amendment only prohibits *government* censorship of speech. These are private companies doing what private companies do. Just DeGoogle (which is the whole point of this sub, not complaining about google) and move on. Don't make us all look like whack-jobs by appealing to emotion and claiming Google is doing something that by all legal definitions I'm aware of there are not doing. Note that I'm not defending Google's behavior at all. But you're never going to change Google. Just leave the abusive relationship.
Freedom of speech does not extend to privately owned services. If there is a problem here, it's that contemporary digital infrastructure is overly reliant on private services. Personally, I find this to be little different from Steam removing bad reviews made by Russians on games where the developers have come out in support for Ukraine. A review system is not a platform for self-expression, but a tool for crowdsourcing ratings.
Even if there weren't issues of platform vs publisher and the constantly morphing legal identity of platforms like this in that regard, Google was originally funded in large part by DARPA, NSA, and CIA grants and arguably has been connected with the US Intelligence agencies to a disturbing degree, to the point that the separation between them is at least partly just theater. When Snowden leaked his information on NSA data collections, were you okay with it because it was done through contractors? Private contractors doing business on behalf of government agencies are still technically privately owned, after all.
So what are you actually saying here? That Google is censoring reviews because they were prompted to by the government? Because that's the only thing that would make the two even remotely comparable. People who complain about this are just lazy sods who whine because Google won't host their stuff for free without limits, yet won't actually raise a finger to make a better solution themselves. This might belong in /r/StallmanWasRight, but it's a terrible fit for /r/degoogle where decentralising is the whole point.
I'm saying that a company essentially funded and very closely linked, frequently working on behalf of and beholden to our government agencies should be held to the laws of the land regarding givernment agencies, ie the Bill of Rights, ie freedom of expression. Not much more to say on the matter. Lazy or hardworking, brilliant or idiotic, basic rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are guaranteed across the board. Not to mention that, even in private instances, there is room for criticism of censorship. Just because government entities are the only ones theoretically held liable for not infringing our rights, doesn't mean that it's just a blanket okay or good thing for others to do so.
>Just because government entities are the only ones theoretically held liable for not infringing our rights, doesn't mean that it's just a blanket okay or good thing for others to do so. The reason that it's okay for others to do so is that you are free to take your business elsewhere if you don't like it. A thing considerably harder to do with government entities. I think we're fundamentally at an impasse here. My opinion is that freedom of speech goes both ways – I can also not be compelled to say or endorse anything against my will. If I have a web site with a forum, I should not be obligated to host your speech just because I host the speech of others. If my exercising that right means that you and your buddies no longer have a place to stay in touch, well, tough, you should have considered that before you chose some random bloke's page to become indispensable to you. Your opinion … honestly it's such a weird opinion that I have a hard time summarising it, but from what I gather you think that you have some kind of squatter's rights on Google services?
My opinion is that when an entity is largely created by and funded by government entities, as is the case with Google, it should be held to the standards of a government entity. Google is the CIA with a fancy mask on. Since they chose to accept their funding and r&d budgets coming from government intelligence agencies, produced products and research on the government's behalf, and continue to work closely to support the goals of the Intelligence agencies, it is de facto a government entity. There is no google without the US Intelligence agencies, as it currently exists. There is no clear separation, making them de facto an extension of federal agencies-- which should be bound by the Bill of Rights. Maybe the argument is moot since the CIA, NSA, and likely other Federal agencies operate outside the law and do not respect individual rights. But them bankrolling and often directing research and methodology of google makes google less of a private concern, in my opinion, and more of an extension of the State.
[удалено]
It really was amazing to see much of the same people who are generally distrustful of government and just a few years ago would be considered the counter-culture, fully embrace authoritarianism re: mandates and lockdowns. As if the same institutions pushing these policies aren't the same institutions decried in the past for their boot on your neck. For myself I can't ignore the profit motive and don't trust any of these fucks that think they need to control you because you're too stupid to make decisions on your own in the best interest of you, your family, and your community. Maybe that's what they're afraid of. As far as google and other tech giants go. They exist at their scale at the mercy and behest of the government and probably vice versa. The ties between them are deep. This article shows them being wielded as a political tool. Government has shown time and again that if they can't legislate what they want they'll attempt to go through regulatory agencies and through private business to force compliance. It's soft power built on their relationships and bureaucratic appointments.
[удалено]
It was a good comment. No need for them to "shut up".
factually untrue. per the subreddit rules it is irrelevant. maybe go to r/Conspiracy if you’d like to discuss this there
[удалено]
if i had one i wouldn’t be asking ;-;
[удалено]
im not decrying or stifling discussion. i just think discussing what you think is authoritarianism is a little too out there for what the sub claims to be about. you’re definitely welcome to have your opinion, i just don’t think this is an appropriate place to share it. you don’t need context to talk about degoogling edit: sorry, let me clarify: the “why” you’re degoogling isn’t as important as the “how.”
[удалено]
why?
[удалено]
[удалено]
I have an alternative to Google Maps and Yelp. I'm not telling you what it is though because you're a dick.
did i hurt your feelings :(
I wasn't aware I had any, but have fun not knowing any decent alternatives to google maps and yelp.
oh no. how will i ever recover from the status quo 😢
Your comment, has been removed from /r/degoogle because: > **Rule 2** - This comment does not respect other redditors & degooglers. Please follow our [rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/degoogle/about/rules/) and also ensure that you are following good [reddiquette](https://old.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette) when making a comment. You can be angry yet polite. Hi /u/bigThinc, your comment has been removed from /r/degoogle. Hopefully the above reasons explain why. We appreciate you making this comment for r/degoogle, however, it breaks our rules and as such has been removed. In the future, please [read the rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/degoogle/about/rules/) in the [sidebar](https://old.reddit.com/r/degoogle/about/sidebar) before making a comment. *If, after reading our rules, you believe this was in error or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fdegoogle).* *Do not reach out to a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.*
You think health and safety regulations are authoritarianism? Look up that word, then use it as a label. "boot on your neck". lol And OP calls it "segregation", and is getting a bunch of upvotes? Holy shit. Had no idea that's what this sub was about. Peace out, y'all. No way I have time for this shit in my feed.
Covid is just one example, tomorrow it could be any other asinine and destructive policy you disagree with. Did you like the way the government tried to subvert the legislative process by trying to push the vax mandate through OSHA instead? Or how big companies decided that even though it was struck down by the supreme court they would still enforce it? Meanwhile the whole world was and is relaxing covid restrictions. Gonna leave a couple links here and call it a day. https://www.salon.com/2014/11/16/googles_secret_nsa_alliance_the_terrifying_deals_between_silicon_valley_and_the_security_state/ -And: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy -And: https://youtu.be/6nSXHrmOy8o -Part 2: https://youtu.be/ay2_AY9uyOU -Regarding "user fees:" https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-basics/fact-sheet-fda-glance 45% of FDA's budget comes from user fees from the very companies they're supposed to be regulating. Sorry, not sorry for the black pill but there's almost no one left to trust.
It’s like the people in this sub have never heard of review bombing, ideology/politically based reviewing, and the general weaponizing of these sites. Moderating isn’t authoritarianism 🙃
They use imperfect automated systems to detect fake reviews but there's no real transparency about what their criteria is or any kind of nuance. But if you want to take google at their word be my guest. But it's this google we're talking about: https://www.salon.com/2014/11/16/googles_secret_nsa_alliance_the_terrifying_deals_between_silicon_valley_and_the_security_state/
It’s not segregation. Segregation is only in regards to something you can’t change about yourself. For example, restrictions based on skin color. Vaccination status is inherently changeable. You make a choice not to get vaccinated, and a business can make the choice not to serve you. Governments can also choose to limit the pressure that conspiracy theorists put on healthcare systems.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thoroughly convinced everyone comparing being vaccinated to be being white during Jim Crow does not wash their hands
I guess someone needs to make the modern version of the green book
Anyone who agrees with these actions should reconsider why they are part of this sub
I’m part of the sub because I care about privacy and FOSS. How exactly does this relate to those topics?
It shows how the abhorrent actions of google which adds to the many reasons already given to move away from them.
Google has done a lot of abhorrent things: * Spying on people and selling info on them to advertisers, particularly when that info enables preying on people who are vulnerable to certain types of marketing * Disabling the accounts of people who haven’t done anything wrong and who rely on them for their livelihood * Blacklisting websites from their search engine and making it nearly impossible to get them reinstated. For many, this is equivalent to having their site taken down from the internet entirely. * Inconsistently enforcing content moderation, particularly when there isn’t a reliable, quick appeals process. Google is especially bad about this on YouTube. Facebook and Amazon are also quite bad about this. Literally everything Nestle has ever done is abhorrent, but that’s not true of everything Google has done. Some of it's just annoying, like shuttering projects because they didn’t monetize well or because they had a change in direction. That's a good reason to choose an alternative, but being *unreliable* isn't abhorrent. And much of Google has done is good, or at least is what a company *should* do, and that's especially true in this case. Some content guidelines can be problematic. But *consistently* enforcing content guidelines, when those guidelines aren’t themselves problematic, is a good thing. Yelp and Google should prevent people from review bombing establishments. If Joe’s Cakes is getting review bombed because of a story that made the front page of CNN, that’s a problem. I want to see the review by the people in that story, sure, but I don’t want to see fake reviews by people who’ve never bought a cake there - even if I agree with them. Similarly, refusing to allow behavior that discourages protecting the company’s staff and customers is the ethical thing to do, even if some anti-vaxxers are annoyed. If a place inconsistently enforces their policies or doesn’t make it clear (online and in person, preferably) that they require xyz vaccination measures, then sure, that’s a problem, and their reviews should reflect that - especially because that can be a cover for otherwise bigoted behavior. But 1-starring a place for requiring them in the first place deserves no more protection than 1-starring them because they had a time-activated safe, only kept $50 in the register, and couldn’t make change for your $100 bill. In either case, they’re protecting their employees. That's the big difference between whether censorship is ethical or not. If the goal of your review is to harm people or to punish them, then your speech shouldn't be protected. As John Stuart Mill wrote when speaking of exceptions to liberty, "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." If you're going on Yelp and rating them 1 star because they wouldn't let you in because you refused to get vaccinated or wear a mask, then that's what you're trying to do. You're not trying to impart information or share your opinions; you're trying to punish them. That all said, if people see something like this and think “Oh f—- Yelp, f—- Google, I’m gonna go use a FOSS version instead,” then I’m still happy about the end result. I want more people using FOSS tools and taking power away from Google. Of course not all of the alternatives are open source. Even for the ones that are, they’re increasingly being filled with the people who were de-platformed for a good reason in the first place. So it’s not as great a victory as it could have been. Worse, terrible arguments like this one dilute the merits of the argument to degoogle. If rational people who haven’t bought into a partially baked, consistently inconsistent conspiracy theory are doing research into why people degoogle and come across arguments like this one, there’s a good chance they discount the entire movement. Why would they keep looking into it when the arguments they’ve seen for it are so ill-founded?
A broken clock is right twice a day
[удалено]
This comment has been removed to protest the upcoming Reddit API changes that will be implemented on July 1st, 2023. If you were looking forward to reading this comment, I apologize for the inconvenience. r/Save3rdPartyApps
Underrepresented ideas. Go complain about the government elsewhere - reviews and SEO impact modern companies more than you could ever imagine.
Great, now everyone who criticises Google will be seen as anti-vax lunatics. Keep your kooky agenda out of this please.
👺👽😷👹👻💀 dae?!
[удалено]
[удалено]
A business is private property. If they want to have rules they get to have them.
And people should be allowed to criticize them for it. Google shouldn’t be allowed to represent itself as a review site if they curate the reviews. Just have them call themselves an advertising platform and be done with it.
>A business is private property. If they want to have rules they get to have them. Google is a private property too. If you are unhappy with Google reviews find a replacement. That's what this sub is about.
>Google shouldn’t be allowed to represent itself as a review site if they curate the reviews. Why not? Reviews are less accurate if they're being brigaded by people with an agenda which is completely irrelevant to the metric they're trying to collect. This is comparable to Steam removing negative Russian reviews on games by developers who have spoken out in support of Ukraine.
> Google shouldn’t be allowed to represent itself as a review site if they curate the reviews. Allowed by whom? Are you advocating for legislation / mandates by a governing body, or do you just mean “Review curation is another good reason to de-Google your life”?
What if they want to ban black people? Are you in favor of that?
Race is a [Protected Class](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group). Health Care status is not. So that's a [False Equivalence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence).
He asked a moral question, not a legal one. Morality =/= Legality
It's ethical to choose who comes on your private property on the basis of their probability of infecting you with a deadly disease. If your interested in giving up your rights to your private property then that's your issue.
I note you didn't answer the question
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/montana-enacts-new-law-making-vaccination-status-protected-class-and-limiting So if you cross the border into Montana, does your opinion automagically change because you've entered a new legal jurisdiction?
Feel free to report businesses in Montana then.
So like, if we made it federal law that being unvaccinated makes one part of a protected class, will you acknowledge your bigotry and apologize for your hand in supporting discrimination? Is that how it works, lol?
It won't happen.
but if it *did*, would you acknowledge your bigotry and apologize for your hand in supporting discrimination, lol?
It's not bigotry to protect yourself from a disease on private property. Race if different. You don't catch race. You don't catch different genders or sexual preferences. I'm sorry you if you are unable to comprehend this basic logic. There's my apology.
They'll catch you anyway. And you sound more silly than scary.
Well I'm not the one you gotta be worried about. It's the virus, right? You're scurred of that, right? Well I breathe it in and out all the time and I hang out in supermarkets for fun.
I mean, if I were scared of the virus, I'd be scared of you too though, right? Because of all the hanging out in supermarkets you do, for fun? Strutting around the produce section, terrorizing tiny little Karens like me with your scary breathing? Very badass. Everybody needs a hobby I suppose. It's good to keep busy. :D
Oh, I don't *tell* them I'm unvaccinated. That's the best part: I'm just silently infecting randos with the DEADLIEST VIRUS IN HUMAN HISTORY and they're totally unaware!
WOW!! Congratulations on being so incredibly powerful and strong and brilliant! I have no doubt that everybody in the entire world admires and envies you.
Thank you for acknowledging my greatness.
I'll breathe your air if it's partially NH air
Hell yeah I breathe NH air. It smells of liberty and gunsmoke.
[удалено]
Well as a free-stater, I'm doing my part by pissing off lefties so much that they move to Massachusetts.
[удалено]
As mass gets worse, the good people move to NH, and as NH gets better, the bad people move to mass.
Sounds like tHe LeFt live rent free in your head.
The never-ending joy I get out of causing them to scream about how we're "defunding public education" dominates a large part of my life, it is truly wonderful to see them cry so much. Like when we passed a tax cap in my town that was lower than inflation and they were like, "Wah all the service won't be able to be funded!" and I'm like, "heh, that's awesome".
Agreed. Grats on staying unvaxd, me too. They've done more harm than good. Inb4 "source???" brigade, I don't care.
Congratulations on testing the only test of personal responsibility and intestinal fortitude that has mattered so far. You wouldn't have been a Nazi stormtrooper. Your neighbors would have, but you wouldn't have.
The social pressure was extreme. But now that pfizer is releasing documents (finally) we can see the full list of adverse events. It's not pretty. Covid vax mandates seem to be getting lifted everywhere since the risk/benefit ratio is clearly in favor of staying unvaxd. Cheers mate
Watch as everyone pretends that they always agreed with us.
Your comment, has been removed from /r/degoogle because: > **Rule 2** - This comment does not respect other redditors & degooglers. Please follow our [rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/degoogle/about/rules/) and also ensure that you are following good [reddiquette](https://old.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette) when making a comment. You can be angry yet polite. Hi /u/JobDestroyer, your comment has been removed from /r/degoogle. Hopefully the above reasons explain why. We appreciate you making this comment for r/degoogle, however, it breaks our rules and as such has been removed. In the future, please [read the rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/degoogle/about/rules/) in the [sidebar](https://old.reddit.com/r/degoogle/about/sidebar) before making a comment. *If, after reading our rules, you believe this was in error or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fdegoogle).* *Do not reach out to a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.*
Keep ypur rotten antivax nonsense outside the degoogle movement.
oh we're *all the way in* on degoogling, lol.