|
|
Post by prozyan on Jan 11, 2018 18:19:17 GMT -5
What the fuck is a Black Noogler?
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jan 11, 2018 18:37:32 GMT -5
A Noogler is a new employee at Google.
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 11, 2018 20:54:00 GMT -5
That's just what they want you to think.
But doesn't it seem like Google is actually way worse than all the parody versions of it in TV and film that are.out there?
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 11, 2018 22:40:04 GMT -5
As much as I hate the word "toxic," given the cliche ways it's used in modern parlance, I can't help but think how much Google's corporate culture sounds like a toxic environment. Just going off what's contained in that article, it sounds like a festering cess pool of brainwashed virtue-signaling. Seriously, the language used in some of those emails and message-board posts mimics that used in religious cults and makes Google sound like a Silicon Valley North Korea.
"Toxic Google-inity?"
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 12, 2018 7:44:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jan 12, 2018 8:56:26 GMT -5
Here's something else that is "embarrassingly true." You overlooked the rest of the paragraph that is kinda pertinent. It's funny how conservative White men like James Damore piss and moan how they are being victimized by liberals and women and people of different races or gender identity as if the damn world wasn't run by conservative white men like James Damore. It must be winter. Look at all the snowflakes. |
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jan 12, 2018 8:57:04 GMT -5
I knew this sort of thing, to some extent, would be present in left-wing tech companies. But to this degree? Wow. I'm shocked and plenty dismayed. Then I tell myself, these are the young people being churned out of our universities. And a lot of that shock I felt dissipates and turns into sadness. It is a concern, however, when we realize how powerful companies like Google are, in terms of control of information. I don't think I would worry as much if they, for example, fabricated running shoes. Yeah, it's a concern, alright. |
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 12, 2018 9:27:20 GMT -5
Here's something else that is "embarrassingly true." You overlooked the rest of the paragraph that is kinda pertinent. Nah, It wasn't pertinent to the point I was making there, that indeed Google's fact-checking was demonstrably wrong. The rest of the bit--that you quoted--is just opinion. And in that regard, I think the Gizmodo piece is trying to hard too defend Google, even as the DC piece is trying too hard to paint Google as a villain. Because even though there's an obvious apparent bias with regard to which sites get the fact-checking treatment, some of that is easily explained. The Daily Kos, for instance, is really a collection of blogs and can't be treated in the same way as a site like The DC (though sites like The Nation certainly could be). And I'd note--I guess in defense of Google--that neither Cato nor Heritage get the fact-checking treatment. Still, if Google is going to run summaries for some sites that include fact-checking, they should be getting it right. Nothing worse than a fact-checker that can't be trusted, for whatever reason. And until Google fixes such blatant errors, it's fair--imo--to criticize them for an apparent double standard. |
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jan 12, 2018 13:27:55 GMT -5
Here's something else that is "embarrassingly true." You overlooked the rest of the paragraph that is kinda pertinent. Nah, It wasn't pertinent to the point I was making there, that indeed Google's fact-checking was demonstrably wrong. The rest of the bit--that you quoted--is just opinion. You are cherry-picking the part of Tom McKay's Gizmodo article you consider germane to your point and saying the rest doesn't matter when it's not. That's not really how it works. The point I quoted is entirely pertinent to the central issue of whether Google is singling out conservative websites for disparate treatment by the search engine. Either McKay's article is all opinion or its not. It doesn't turn into "just opinion" because he's defending Google (He's really not). This was also pertinent and it's not "just opinion" but a fact about right-leaning sites like The Daily Caller and it bears repeating. What part of that is inaccurate? Facts don't become invalid simply because they don't fit with the narrative and its easier to cry "bias against conservatives" than it is to call out biased conservatives. Oh, and this likely a byproduct of my own bias since I'm not a conservative White male, but wailing little man-babies like James Damore who shit where they eat are really hard to pull for. |
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jan 12, 2018 14:57:20 GMT -5
Here's something else that is "embarrassingly true." You overlooked the rest of the paragraph that is kinda pertinent. Nah, It wasn't pertinent to the point I was making there, that indeed Google's fact-checking was demonstrably wrong. The rest of the bit--that you quoted--is just opinion. And in that regard, I think the Gizmodo piece is trying to hard too defend Google, even as the DC piece is trying too hard to paint Google as a villain. Because even though there's an obvious apparent bias with regard to which sites get the fact-checking treatment, some of that is easily explained. The Daily Kos, for instance, is really a collection of blogs and can't be treated in the same way as a site like The DC (though sites like The Nation certainly could be). And I'd note--I guess in defense of Google--that neither Cato nor Heritage get the fact-checking treatment. Still, if Google is going to run summaries for some sites that include fact-checking, they should be getting it right. Nothing worse than a fact-checker that can't be trusted, for whatever reason. And until Google fixes such blatant errors, it's fair--imo--to criticize them for an apparent double standard. It's a prototype. That it gets things wrong sometimes should not be shocking or evidence of an anti-conservative conspiracy. I can easily see how such a tool might have wound up pulling a quote from a linked article and incorrectly attributing it to the original source. That's the sort of thing you submit a bug report to fix. Absent any other evidence, this does not look to me like whatever team is programming the "Fact Checker" is preferentially targeting conservative sites. It's unfortunately true that the number of influential right-leaning sites that are unreliable if not batshit crazy outnumbers the number of left-leaning sites of similar stature with their audiences. There are leftist equivalents of InfoWars, but none that have an audience anywhere near as large, proportionately. Claiming Google is being all shady-leftist, in this case at least, is about as credible as Trump calling CNN "fake news." I cannot help thinking this is a case where reality has a well-known liberal bias. |
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jan 12, 2018 15:01:21 GMT -5
Damore made himself a PR firestorm and asked for a firing, regardless of his arguments, so that much is true. But The Week is being typically dishonest in paraphrasing Damore's memo. No honest reading of his words has him "calmly explaining that his black and female coworkers are too dumb to be his colleagues." |
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 12, 2018 15:04:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jan 12, 2018 15:23:23 GMT -5
I'm surprised Google didn't just throw Damore in and see if he floated.
Witch-hunts were so much easier in the old days.
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 12, 2018 15:32:17 GMT -5
It's a prototype. That it gets things wrong sometimes should not be shocking or evidence of an anti-conservative conspiracy. I can easily see how such a tool might have wound up pulling a quote from a linked article and incorrectly attributing it to the original source. That's the sort of thing you submit a bug report to fix. Sure, that could be the case. But if it is the case, it's on Google to explain it and fix it, no? Until that happens, it remains additional grist for a mill that really doesn't need any more. Look at the first one currently up on the "reviewed claims" for the Daily Caller: Here's the fact check page at Snopes for this: www.snopes.com/miguel-martinez-transgender-bathroom-controversy/From it (my boldface): So, the Snopes "fact check" actually confirms what's in the DC piece (read it); there's no "mixture" because the DC didn't make the claim that the Google summary is saying that it made. All the DC piece did was report on the actual incident. It was "Louder with Crowder"--according to Snopes--that claimed the attack was a consequence of bills being passed to allow transgender people to use bathrooms that correspond to their gender. So, that's two "reviewed claims" in the Google summary that are incorrect (to put it nicely). The fact that Google isn't a news site shouldn't absolve it of a responsibility to get things right, imo. |
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 12, 2018 15:44:27 GMT -5
Either McKay's article is all opinion or its not. It doesn't turn into "just opinion" because he's defending Google (He's really not). Disagree. It's a fact that in the Goggle "reviewed claims" section for the DC, there are errors, that Google is wrongly claiming that the DC got some things wrong that it didn't get wrong at all (because the DC didn't actually make the claims that Google is attributing to it). And this: ...is very much opinion, especially since it's using non-specific qualifiers like "a massive segment" and "most parts" (and really, "conservative media" and "mainstream media" as well). Now I happen to agree with that opinion to an extent and I think there's evidence to support it, as well. But it is opinion, even if well-considered. |
|
