[flagged]
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Epstein%20Tes...
>On Election Day in 2018, the “Go Vote” reminder Google displayed on its home page gave one political party between 800,000 and 4.6 million more votes than it gave the other party. Those numbers might seem impossible, but I published my analysis in January 2019 (https://is.gd/WCdslm) (Epstein, 2019a), and it is quite conservative. Google’s data analysts presumably performed the same calculations I did before the company decided to post its prompt. In other words, Google’s “Go Vote” prompt was not a public service; it was a vote manipulation.
Have you been living under a rock? The tech companies taking sides in politics is not a conspiracy theory.
Or, is it "plainly ridiculous" to think that Google started on their version of political correctness when they built Gemini, but not before?
The Twitter Files revealed how much the FBI and CIA have their hands in social media. The biggest data source on the planet was untouched?
The original comment made a pretty explosive claim without any rationalization. Without some substantion that comment just inflames folks without fostering an interesting discussion. My 2c.
You also can't expect people to write long rebuttals to every inane conspiracy theory. That just allows people like the OP to commit what are effectively denial of service attacks on the community, by posting low effort ramblings with the expectation that they deserve a discussion, which the other people would need to put way more effort into than the OP would. Downvotes are for hiding this crap at the bottom of the page, so that it at least doesn't take away the oxygen from discussions grounded in reality.
I hate that word with a passion, it's used as the one and only argument to shut down discussion. Did you know that Google recently changed their terms to allow to censor results during "special events" or some bullshit like that? Big-tech trying to control the narrative is not a conspiracy theory, it's in the open.
If you don't have the attention span to argue your point or ask for an elaboration just move on. We are in the comment section for the discussion not for validation from the hive mind, right? Am I expecting too much from HN?
No, I don't. I'm arguing that downvoting is a lazy way to discuss. It's anonymous, drive-by and a completely useless way to speak your mind. I'm arguing that the option to downvote discourages discussion.
They don't have to engage at all if the quality was so low. What about the comment was low quality? How can it be improved? Are the claims incorrect? Or was someone just offended? All that information is lost with the downvote and there's no way to find out. If they know so much better why don't they use that knowledge and educate?
What is low quality is subjective, I don't think the comment was low quality, but the downvote brigade managed to hide it. It's a shame because this could've been an interesting thread. Ironic given the context don't you think?