Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> I know exactly how a search engine works, so your explanation is irrelevant.

No, you don't.

> Google spiders the web and creates profiles about people

It does not create profiles of people. It creates indexes of words.

When you look at those words, YOU conclude that it's a profile of a person.

CLEARLY, if Google is designed to operate on profiles of people, then it should handle that data carefully, etc.

But CLEARLY if Google is designed to operate on indexes of words, then it's nowhere near as clear what should happen if you happen to search for the name of a person.

You're now demanding that Google LEARN the difference between words and the names of people, and that it behave differently for the two.

So, yes, EvanKelly asked an insightful question:

Are you opposed to the idea of indexes of words in general?

To which you must honestly answer YES. Because you apparently do not believe that it can be considered JUST an index of words. You want this extra layer of understanding.

The telephone company is not responsible for you getting death threats. The post office is not responsible for stopping you from getting a pipe bomb. Making information like this available on the web IS THE PROBLEM.

Indexing words should be innocent.

It's like you want to sue the owners of a building because a bullet ricocheted off of it and killed your dog. Go after the jerk with the gun, okay?



You don't seem to understand that Google is a company run by people who are part of a society. Not some kind of naturally occurring algorithm.


Burn the library down, because you were offended by a book.

Card catalogs should be illegal.

Let's dig up Melvil Dewey and desecrate his corpse.

The fundamental question is: is it harmful to run a word index algorithm on the internet's data?

You're saying YES.

Don't you realize how backwards and harmful that is?


What have these straw men got to do with anything other than that you don't like the idea of Google having any responsibility for the negative consequences of their service?


Am I correct in saying that you think it is harmful to run a word index algorithm on the internet's data?


You keep asking that and I've already answered. No. The harm is in the information you publish about people. Using a word index algorithm in the process is irrelevant to that.


Google didn't publish this information.

Google IS a word index algorithm, which ECHOES the information.

If you don't want something to show up in the index, then stop it from being published.

That's why we keep asking:

I assert, "Google IS a word index algorithm on the internet's data. Is it be harmful to run a word index algorithm on the world's data?" To which you say "NO."

Then, somehow, you're still asserting that Google did harm.

Google Search is JUST a word index algorithm. That is the entirety of what it is. So, by your argument, it is NOT harmful to run Google.


You seem to be saying that there is no Google corporation, no Larry Page or Sergei Brin, and no Google Offices or employees, or executives.

That is what it means to assert that google is just an algorithm.


"Is it be harmful to run a word index algorithm on the world's data?"

That question COULD NOT BE MORE CLEAR.

It doesn't matter if Larry Page and Sergey Brin form a corporation named Google to do it, or not.

And yet, you say "No, it's not harmful" when we ask you, but then you say, "Yes, it is harmful, if Larry and Sergey make a company called Google to do it."

YOU ARE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF.


I am not contradicting myself. You are simply repeating a straw man argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Note in particular point 2 of the structure: Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y.

Google is much more than a word index, so claiming that this is just about word indexes is a misrepresentation.

I'm sorry you are making this error.


At what point does it stop being a word index, which you assert is harmless...

And start being "much more," which you assert is harmful.

The ONLY WAY to not have a contradiction is to have a clear line between the two.

Or else you're stuck with "I'll know it when I see it" which is no way to write laws.

So, please educate us, at what point does it become harmful?


Any time you publish information on the web you need to consider whether you are defaming someone. This applies whether a word index is part of your publishing process or not.

These laws aren't written about 'word indexes' they are written about the rights people have to publish information about other people. That is what is at issue.


Please just admit that you can't answer my question.

You assert that A) is harmless, and B) is harmful, but you can't explain the difference between A and B.

YOU'RE the one who said that A is harmless, and B is harmful. NOT ME.

If you conclude from all of this discussion, that it is inherently HARMFUL to operate a word index algorithm on the internet's data, that's fine. I disagree, but that's at least a coherent position.

But for some bizarre reason, you claim that operating a word index algorithm on the internet's data is not harmful... but that what Google does is harmful.

I'm sorry you're incapable of defending your own thought process.


The harm is done by what Google publishes. I've told you this repeatedly. The fact that they use a word index as part of the mechanism is irrelevant.

I have repeatedly defended my thought processes. You have simply ignored what I've said, and focused obsessively on whether 'word indexes' are inherently harmful. This has no more relevance than asking whether 'cpu's' are inherently harmful.

Many companies use word indexes in what they do. Not all companies are Google. Therefore google is not just a word index.


Do you know what a word index is?

a.com/b says "gress is dumb"

A word index of that one site would look like these key / list-of-values pairs:

gress: [a.com/b]

is: [a.com/b]

dumb: [a.com/b]

If I search on a that word index for the word "gress," I might get as a result:

a.com/b "gress is dumb"

So, now you're pissed, because the word index says you're dumb.

I say you can be pissed at the operators of a.com, or the specific author of the web page b. Maybe even take them to court.

YOU'RE the one who said that operating the word index was harmless.

This legal case is EXACTLY ANALOGOUS to what I described, and the only important function of Google Search Engine, as far as this debate goes, is that the index under the word "gress" links to the site a.com/b.

It's not that Google USES a word index. It's that Google IS a word index. And you said that operating a word index was harmless.

And here's how stupid your last paragraph is:

All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, all men are Socrates.


If you think that Google is nothing more than a word index, and not a corporation, then you are delusional. It's as simple as that.


YOU'RE the one who said that operating the word index was harmless.

And I've demonstrated that operating a word index would have produced exactly the same behavior that you say is harmful.

That is a contradiction. If you can't resolve that contradiction, it proves you have unclear thinking on the subject.

Whether the operator of the word index is a corporation or not is immaterial to the argument.


The only unclear thinking is you stating that Google is nothing more than a word index. That is plainly a delusion.

Or are you arguing that anyone who operates a word index can do no wrong?


Please stop.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: