> Equating automated behavioral analysis or ad targeting with willful communications-spying, like NSA does, is retarded.
Implying my two statements, one about spying and the other about consumer propaganda are the same is pretty dishonest bullshit. We know google spies on its users for the NSA and other agencies and we know Google makes its money from consumer propaganda. It's pretty simple.
> Equating automated behavioral analysis or ad targeting with willful communications-spying, like NSA does, is retarded.
Google is essentially an NSA partner when it comes to spying.
> How is this Google's fault in any way? Google owns a lot of those ad networks, but beyond that they're not responsible for news quality.
Of course google is responsible for what content it shows in its search engine and other products, and which content providers they reward.
> Aka every other private corporation in the US? You really seem to be grasping at straws trying to make them out to be as bad as intelligence agencies.
You seem to have one goal here - defend Google. Somehow other corporations doing wrong is what absolved google (and probably all other corporations) in your eyes. Nice try.
> They're dedicating their network resources to preventing independent news websites from being censored by oppressive governments or DDoS'd by hostile entities, pro bono, and it appears to be working quite well.
Nope, they participate in censorship and will remove and website or content from their results if some government (like the US government) as them to.
> I am no Google fanboy.
You wouldn't need to state that if your post wasn't just blind google defense based on false information.
Well, it's cute that they only mention ISIS, but the same exact means can and are being used to suppress political dissent and unpopular opinion, while google is the master of spreading consumer propaganda and spying on people.
> 'End repressive censorship'
The commercialization of news is the best form of censorship. You don't need to censor much when the vast majority of news is meaningless bullshit stuffed with ads and promotions, and is already controlled by organizations like Google.
> 'Crime and corruption thrive in the absence of transparency. As long as criminal organizations and corrupt institutions can operate without scrutiny, they will continue to use modern tools to conceal their behavior. But injustice and corruption — from atrocities on the battlefield to money laundering to organized crime — leave behind information that can be used to understand these challenges and work to stop them.'
Google is one of these organizations that operate without scrutiny and transparency alongside organizations such as the NSA.
If you think Google will help you with anonymity, free speech, or 'unfiltered' news, you are retarded.
Only because it took them a while to hire/train people sufficiently to be able to sell Swift. This has nothing to do with Swift itself, my point is IBM's bullshit should be ignored.
> So the offensive tone of your comment is misplaced.
What offensive tone? There was no offensive tone, but the fact that you presumed there was says a lot.
> It called itself that way, that's why I used the term, as I explained.
Okay, so not related to what it actually is.
> The reason why there are such people in the U.S. is not corporations per se, but rather lack of social system (which also comes from your fellow citizens). In Europe, we have corporations too and yet we have less problems like this.
Europe has the same problems.
> I am not saying corporations are not a problem, but in this case, they are not the primary cause.
So you are ignoring corporate interests and their influence on society and politics? Clearly corporations and the elite have a huge impact on politics, so ignoring that aspect makes no sense.
> Unlike communist party, corporation cannot prevent you to have a job.
Which communist party? Every party that calls itself communist can prevent you from having a job?
> If you have skills which are in demand, you can still work for smaller business or on your own.
Provided there are smaller businesses which are able to exist alongside the corporation, that they can pay you enough, that you are even able to find them, that you didn't sign a document that prevents you from working for a competitor (which is quite common), etc, etc. Also why can't you work for a smaller company/organization if there is a 'communist' party?
'Not that many' is not really acceptable for many applications, and I'm not talking only about IoT, but self-driving cars, surgery robots, rockets, etc.
> I mean communist regime, like in Eastern Europe, not the ideology.
What makes it a 'communist' regime if it doesn't fit the communist ideology?
> While corporations in capitalism are also hierarchical, the risk to ruining your life is much less, because you can always change the corporation and start with a clean slate.
That must be why there are no jobless, homeless, poor people in America.
> Your family is not affected (or only very rarely).
So how do your children eat if you don't have a job?
> Even in hierarchical system of corporation, this gives you freedom that is incomparable to being in prison or under totalitarian government.
So you're telling working for a corporation isn't the same as being in prison? Wow, much insight.