Does not bashing everything Google does immediately make someone a Google apologist?
The fact that they do a lot of very questionable things does not mean everything they do should be immediately condemned. Judging a single action as neutral or useful does not preclude disapproving of the actor in general, and general disapproval should not preclude viewing specific actions neutrally and in context.
> Does not bashing everything Google does immediately make someone a Google apologist?
Of course not. However, there is no denying that HN as a community is really biased in favor of Google.
Just for comparison: when the news came that you'd be searchable by name in Facebook, half the discussion focused on "delete your account!" and "they are trying to kill privacy!". Google puts your name and picture on ads online, something that in the "real" world requires a ton of paperwork and usually money exchanging hands (including yours)? Nah, dude, that's fine.
I know they are only slightly comparable, but my point is: the bias in favor of Google is there. May not be everyone, may not be an organized PR campaign, but it is definitely there.
I dunno. Why are there so many people so angry with Google that anyone who doesn't think this is "THE END OF THE DAMN WORLD AS WE KNOW IT?!?" is an apologist?
i prefer to think of myself as reasonable, rather than an apologist. if i publish a public review of something, i do it specifically so that other people can see that review. I'm not going to get mad because google has done with my review exactly what i wanted to happen with it.
if you don't want people to see what you write, maybe you should consider using a diary rather than a publishing service.
"i prefer to think of myself as reasonable, rather than an apologist. if i publish a public review of something, i do it specifically so that other people can see that review."
See it where? On every billboard on earth? CNN, BBC, Superbowl commercial? (without any compensation for you)
