Hacker News Reader

Comment by robbrown451 | Hacker News Reader

It seems like the amount it will hurt Google is directly proportional to the amount it will hurt the owner of the site (assuming they want people to read their message).

I'm sure someone at Google is pretty happy that they don't have to show this page in their search results. Nobody can accuse them of bias against anti-Google pages -- the site owner did it to themselves.

Seems like as perfect an example of "cutting off nose to spite face" as I can imagine. (ok, refusing the vax and dying of COVID to get back at the left might be a better example, but this one is close)

View on HN

That may end up being true, but if it were to inspire a movement off of google at a large enough scale it could have an significant impact.

Kinda like everything at human scale. If I stop using fossil fuels the planet still burns, if we all stop we have a chance.

The way to create real change is to come up with viable alternatives. I use DDG as my primary search engine but still find myself using Google on a daily basis using "!g".

Rarely do principles alone keep people using inferior products or technologies.

>Seems like as perfect an example of "cutting off nose to spite face" as I can imagine.

If Google was purely beneficial, then yes. If no, then it's a tradeoff.

Maybe. If enough people use alternative search engines it might not matter a lot for him.

What's the point of the remark at the end of your comment? Completely unneccessary bait for irrelevant political bickering.

DId you just compare boycotting Google with not getting vaxed? I used to vote left. But reading people like you arguing like this reminds me to never ever do so again.

That comment was just an analogy.

Go read some Foxnews comments to get some balancing dumb from the right. People say stupid shit online and neither side has a monopoly.

Interesting. That just means I can make you vote any way I want by making the dumbest argument for the other side. You advertise a strategy that guarantees that you will always cast a manipulated vote. Entertaining.

You seem to imply that not voting for the left automatically means voting for the right. May I remind you that there is another option you probably forgot about? Did you ever hear about the concept of abstaining from voting?

In a two-party system (a necessary de facto in a single-member-district plurality system), failure to vote for a candidate is mathematically identical with a vote for the opposing party.

That's nonsense. By that logic both sides can claim "They didn't vote FOR us so essentially the voted for the other side", which means that by not voting you voted for both.

Interesting. Judging from your comment, I guess you are living in a country with a two party system and the death penalty? Well, I dont.

I fail to see the mathematical equivalence. One is side A: +1 side B: 0

the other is side A: 0 side B: 0

That is also a desired outcome. If I desire a green outcome, I only have to make blues stop voting. In multi-party system if I can make reds and yellows also stop voting it’s great. Fortunately, they will all comply even if I tell them I’m doing this. In fact, they (and you) will particularly comply when told for fear of the shame of backing down.

This pride is particularly exploitable and is why you can orchestrate all sorts of outcomes among demographics that have this vulnerability.

"I used to do X, but now I understand better and won't do X again" is a manipulation technic.

And comparing everything you dont like with anti-vax is not manipulative? C'mon, be more creative.

The opposite of stupidity is not intelligence

Reply on news.ycombinator.com