OhBlindOne ago

That's not how you make a logical argument.

Actually, it is. Based on Google's past performance and the fact that they've shown they are partisan and are willing to manipulate search results, I'm using inductive reasoning (which is a valid logical method) to conjecture that Google will continue to do the bad things they've done with their policies and ultimately use this one to manipulate search results for their own gain.

Yes, I don't have actual evidence of their intentions to do this, but you don't need current evidence in order to conjecture based on the past. So, while it's not a proven argument, it is actually logical. Therefore, your statement about it not being a logical argument is false.

I get that you think I'm fear mongering, but fear mongering usually entails my driving people towards some other entity for help (whether it be the government, corporations, the banks, anyone really,) in this case, I'm not. I'm just stating that Google has done this crap in the past and conjecturing that they're going to do it in the future. I'm not even telling people to stop using Google, I'm just pointing out that this new policy is not a good thing like everyone thinks it is. I'm not encouraging people to do anything other than not support Google's new policy. They are free to use the service at their own risk or support it as they please.

OhBlindOne ago

I'm not telling anyone how to think. I'm making a logical argument.

If you don't support censorship and Google's new policy is censorship, than you don't support Google's new policy.

People are free to do as they please, but rationally speaking, one cannot support freedom of speech and Google's new policy.

OhBlindOne ago

That's not the point of this post.

People who support free speech and hate censorship (most people on Voat,) shouldn't be openly praising and supporting Google for doing this, as it's just censorship masked in an appealing way.

Edit: just for clarification, I don't use Google.

BreesusLovesYou ago

I sort of agree, but I stopped using Google years ago.

duckduckgo.com doesn't bubble

OhBlindOne ago

I don't use Google, either.

Could I ask what you disagree with?

BreesusLovesYou ago

Just the idea that everything is always nefarious. I agree that Google is probably using this to nefariously frame their search results. But at the end of the day if they set a precedent that spambot ads are punished that's worth some non-zero value.

I would like to see a search engine that doesn't manipulate search results but also does punish spambot sites. Google isn't going to be that because they lost my trust a long time ago, but the general concept if taken at face value (which I don't for Google) isn't worthless.