Hacker News Reader

> This is an argument I see a lot - just think and you will realize how right I am. It is often used in place of an evidence-based argument and is an appeal TO your logical brain FROM someone's emotional brain.

I think there's a lot of evidence that people don't respond to logic-based appeals as logically as one would hope. Often, confronted with strong evidence that contradicts people's deeply-held beliefes or feelings, they'll just double-down on those beliefs. Climate change is the most obvious example. While as a scientist I'm sympathetic to your argument, I think the jury is still out regarding the most effective way to go about convincing people to change their beliefs or behavior.

EDIT: typos, reword for clarity

I read those studies - that in the face of evidence, people cling to their disproven beliefs even more [0]. It has been coined "The Backfire Effect" [1] They were the scariest and most fascinating I've read in a long while.

[0] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antivaccination-pa...

[1] (PDF) http://web.archive.org/web/20110511211719/http://www-persona...

Somehow I'm missing your point. If sites make requests to Google Analytics, Google APIs, etc., then anyone who looks at those sites and allows the requests is being tracked and data-mined, and is contributing to Google's power as an internet participant, and contributing to widespread dependence on one company. That's fact, not emotion.

There is an emotional element in either caring about this or not, so maybe that is what you mean. Also, listing the Google properties like he does probably overstates things for a rhetorical effect - certainly not everyone is such a heavy user of Google services. I would guess that most people online use only a few of them (and that you would demand numbers rather than guesses). Nevertheless the point is sound, though expressed in a hyperbolic way.

Two things wrong with what you're saying:

He might have used the phrase "Please think for a minute" (...) "you will get to realize that", but right next to that he gave concrete examples of tons of Google services we use everyday. That's evidence of their multitude, variety and importance. Plus, it's not like his text ended there -- he argued his position in other parts of his post too.

Second, it's not like "just think and you will realize how right I am" is any kind of brain jiu-jitsu. It's just a manner of speaking -- I've never seen anyone win an argument on an forum discussion using that.

>It's not that there isn't evidence of Google being less-than savory - I would argue there is - but I'd research that argument first, not just appeal for emotional sympathies.

Probably reading too much (including intent) in an innocent and not very interesting turn of phrase.

It isn't an appeal to emotional sympathy. He is saying that an inordinate amount of our internet activities involve Google services and that isn't healthy for an open internet. He is "appealing" for you to simply analyze your own daily activities to see what percentage involves the open internet versus Google services.

The research is Frontline's "United States of Secrets, Part 2" which aired in the last week or so.

OP: actually I didn't mean that literally, but I tried to express how I feel about that and what I see around me ... so what I really meant to look into your daily activities, and see if anything can be replaced by some other alternatives and if so, give it a try but eventually your view/analysis is great.

Fair enough. I think some research in to the actual market penetration of some of Google's non-search products would make a stronger argument - like Analytics is used in about 49% of all web properties[0] but your point is taken. And it's true, of all the web properties I own, Google is all over them.

[0] http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ta-googleanalytics/a...

Great analysis! I'll remember this the next time someone argues without any evidence other than clever rhetorics.