Is Google officially evil yet?

>has data collection internet-wide, even knows I'm making this thread
>controls a huge portion of the world's media, then has a crude AI totally fuck up that industry
>allows heavily-flawed algorithms to be central to people's lives; algorithms it could change at any time to ruin or uplift many businesses, change global opinions, determine who becomes president, etc.
>scoops up countless extremely skilled programmers, only to misuse them, retarding computer science by years
>does everything to make sure that you can't get away from it

Google is trying as hard as it can to make itself the god of this world.
They're not happy earning billions a year and performing a brain-drain on computer science as a whole to remain on top.
They want to control every aspect of your life, and be able to overpower any business or government.

I'm pretty sure Google is now up there with Facebook as an evil company.
Facebook is at least stupid-evil, getting massive and then making people distrust it before it creeps into every aspect of people's lives.
Google is smart-evil, getting massive then creeping into every aspect of people's lives, and only now showing that it's willing to suddenly ruin countless careers based around an industry it created.

Other urls found in this thread:

google.com/search?q=Gloria E. Anzaldúa
youtube.com/watch?v=NjqjwCeLf_E
pseudoarchaeology.leadr.msu.edu/bakoniruins/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

when was google not evil

google.com/search?q=Gloria E. Anzaldúa

I think that what needs to be done is to make the nemesis to Google: An AI trained to exploit other AI.

Google LOVES automation; there's no doubt about that, given how little of Google's work is done by real human beings.
And their algorithms are too complicated for anyone, including Google itself, to understand.

However, say you got a fuckload of computers to make AIs duel with each other 24/7, the duel being for each AI to predict what the other AI would do.
It'd require some changes in how AIs learn (The current systems are too rigid to adapt at the extreme speed necessary for this AI vs AI game, AIs would need to be able to learn to learn).

The AI that is created after however long you run this game for would be an absolute nightmare for Google; with some tweaks, you could feed it information about how an AI behaves and it would teach you how to exploit or work around that AI.
For example, if it looked at thousands of videos and knew which ones were flagged by YouTube's new moderation AI, it could identify why those videos are being flagged, and distort video and sound so as to get content past that AI.

So remember: If Google becomes a serious problem one day, train an AI to predict the behaviour of a similar version of itself. Once you turn that AI into a general-purpose tool like Google does with their own AIs, you can seriously fuck with Google, because you have:
>The ultimate Search Engine Optimisation tool
>Protection from AI-based moderation
>A way to make a rough clone of any Google algorithm

In other words, you could do things like make a search engine almost as good as Google Search (but programmed totally differently), have your company appear near the top when someone googles "search engine that isn't google", and get advertisements for your company through Gmail's spam filters.

And you could distribute that AI all across the internet; Google, as a search engine, would become pretty much useless with so much SEO.

>technical solutions to legal problems
No.

What needs to be done is Google needs to be broken up.

But Google is a US based company.
The US will never, ever become a better and fairer place than it currently is; it's structured to ensure that.

It's not going to be solved legally.
It's going to be solved with either software, violence, or the total collapse of society.

Given the state of the US, there's a decent chance that it will collapse before the technological singularity, taking down the world's technological infrastructure with it.

>Given the state of the US, there's a decent chance that it will collapse before the technological singularity, taking down the world's technological infrastructure with it.
GOOD.

>implying google isn't spread out

nigger

PM'd you.

This desu
Humanity was getting along fine as countless distinct cultures in an eternal cycle of creation and destruction until the US came along.

The US was the first incidence of a culture with no self-imposed limitations having access to virtually limitless land and resources.
England was similar when the US was formed, except without really owning all the land and resources under its name.

It's kind of like a tryhard playing an RTS game on easy mode while everyone else is having fun roleplaying on normal/hard difficulty.

Everyone's forced to stop having a wide range of unique, sustainable behaviours and build themselves up massively in an increasingly competitive world.

This buildup could go on forever, and make human life increasingly miserable until humans disappear altogether.

Or, World War 3 could happen and humanity goes back into the old cycles of creation and destruction.

People think that humanity was nothing but cavemen some thousands of years ago, then a continuous buildup of technology and population started and recently accelerated.

But there's been plenty of times when the most powerful and/or advanced civilisation in the world has suffered a setback or collapsed entirely.
Athens was pretty advanced, then Persia destroyed it.
Rome was advanced and huge, then raiders destroyed it.

And for more debatable evidence, there are things like the Bakoni ruins where the best explanation for them is that they were a colossal civilisation in the fucking ice age of all times.
After all, during the last ice age, one of the most habitable regions of the planet was southern Africa; same place that the Bakoni ruins are found.

Not to mention that if ice age civilisations had a distribution anything like ours, they'd have mostly been along coasts which have been underwater for thousands of years.

Ancient myths regarding global flooding all over the world, check. Ancient mythical city that flooded, check. Atlantis probably existed.

Pre-IPO
Becoming publicly traded automatically makes a company evil because of how business law and shareholders rights work.

This
The law really should change to encourage private/public ownership instead of shareholder ownership.

Private interests are personal gain, influence, and reputation, things which must be balanced.
Public interests are the public good.
Shareholder interests are nothing but personal gain.

it was always evil. it's just that it's obvious to everyone.

>showing that it's willing to suddenly ruin countless careers based around an industry it created.

When did this happen?

Teach me your knowledge, user.

>shareholders are eebul
>government ownership good!

Nah m8, just put huge taxes on capital gains under 10 years for anyone who isn't involved in active price discovery. That'll force the serious market movers to stop hinging everything on quarterly numbers and focus long-term.

>shareholders are eebul
>government ownership good!
It has nothing to do with government ownership. In fact legislation is a big problem. The company and its management are bound by law to make the most effective decisions possible to protect and increase shareholder value, no matter how morally bankrupt these decisions might be.

Pretty recently.
Advertisers boycotted YouTube, which you may have heard about; they weren't happy seeing their products advertised on videos they didn't like, even though advertisers were responsible for writing the programs that determine which videos their adverts appear on.

Google reacted pretty quickly to this: They got an AI of theirs to do exactly what the advertisers wanted, having adverts not appear on videos that the AI feels advertisers would not want adverts to appear on. To do this to a video is called "demonetising", and prevents the creator of the video from earning ad revenue.

While AI-based demonetising is an impressive solution, there was a much better solution available:
Big companies concern themselves with big things, so by having moderators sift only through videos that have a hundred thousand views or more, human moderation would be both possible and sufficient for choosing which videos to demonetise.

The demonestisation AI is absolutely ruthless: As soon as it went into action, it demonetised a good portion of videos overnight, and never gave a reason why.
Often one could be sure why a video was demonetised (e.g. swearing), but it's an AI that no one truly understands, so of course many videos are falsely demonetised.

No one can be sure of all the factors that determine whether a video is demonetised or not, but some YouTube channels might have most of their videos demonetised even when they're following guidelines. Suddenly losing most of your revenue is pretty bad, and multiply this by the number of people who make a living off of YouTube and also have poor luck, and you get "countless careers ruined".

Say as the CEO of a traded company you have the land and legal rights to slash a forest and sell it off for cordage and paper milling, then convert the cleared land into a landfill and charge the city to dump in it.
You refuse to do this on ethical/environmental grounds and as a result without those revenues the company misses its fiscal target for the quarter.
You could then be removed as CEO and face charges from the SEC for your involvement. Yes, you read that right. You can literally go to prison for not being the biggest dickbag you can be.

Publicly-traded companies aren't even allowed to be charitable. All charity work a company does must benefit the company, whether it be in the form of publicity or tax benefits, and it has to be significant enough to offset the cost of the charity work.

Cry about it more faggot

youtube.com/watch?v=NjqjwCeLf_E

I always wondered, why do articles from Breitbart never show up in Google when you search news? They get a ridiculous amount of traffic, so surely their content should show up.

Are Google intentionally blocking them from searches?

And yes I know they are pretty biased, in the same way MSNBC is but the other way. Either way are they actually being censored?

Google stopped being benevolent the day after it's IPO.

They do show up, but only occasionally. Chances are that Google gives them very low priority when displaying news results.

Google is trying to completely control the internet via dominating every single channel of information flow, they do it via censorship, spyware, and botnet, and everything else, they have gone full evil a long time ago and it is wide in the open now.

"Do no evil" their fucking ass

I have not once seen them show up in a search result when searching for news in the last two years, unless I actually put breitbart in the search query

Maybe you got search bubbled? Try from a different browser/computer/IP address.

Tip: use FoxyProxy to route captcha through Tor.

evil since probaly like 2007, obviously evil since like 2012.

taking over the world in the nicest way possible

can't be that hard to just slip in a few channel names you want the ai to judge just a *bit* more harshly... you know, to be certain.

pseudoarchaeology.leadr.msu.edu/bakoniruins/

yes, use Bing it's better

Both were created under the US government's Total Information Awareness initiative (which has been floating around under various names for decades now). They were evil from the start.

>taking down the world's technological infrastructure with it.
Nah, this can't happen the us are already irrelevant in pretty much any important field, we can live on without them.

Stop saying like in your posts moron

A CEO was wiggle room. What you could do as a CEO is order a study of how this move would affect your company's reputation. If the study confirmed it would be really bad PR, you could use that to justify not doing it or suggest to offset the impact with, e.g., planting a new forest.

i see you like the term AI, but what AI are you talking about?
Google doesnt have "the" AI which solves anything for them