Comments on: Google Ethics™ http://www.geoffreport.com/wp/2007/05/15/google-ethics%e2%84%a2/ politics ~ theology ~ life ~ fart jokes Mon, 21 Nov 2011 04:47:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jonny http://www.geoffreport.com/wp/2007/05/15/google-ethics%e2%84%a2/comment-page-1/#comment-6958 Jonny Wed, 23 May 2007 04:17:42 +0000 http://www.geoffreport.com/wp/2007/05/15/google-ethics%e2%84%a2/#comment-6958 How can Google be held responsible for verifying facts (or otherwise) on pages it indexes? Surely it is up to the free-thinking individual to weigh up the facts themselves. It seems to me that tweaking results like that to get the 'true' answer, is only a very small step away from giving the public the answers you want them to have. How can Google be held responsible for verifying facts (or otherwise) on pages it indexes? Surely it is up to the free-thinking individual to weigh up the facts themselves. It seems to me that tweaking results like that to get the ‘true’ answer, is only a very small step away from giving the public the answers you want them to have.

]]> By: Christop http://www.geoffreport.com/wp/2007/05/15/google-ethics%e2%84%a2/comment-page-1/#comment-6587 Christop Wed, 16 May 2007 10:03:29 +0000 http://www.geoffreport.com/wp/2007/05/15/google-ethics%e2%84%a2/#comment-6587 Either way, I think we need to stop relying on just one source (like Google) for finding information. Either way, I think we need to stop relying on just one source (like Google) for finding information.

]]> By: Tim Ogilvy http://www.geoffreport.com/wp/2007/05/15/google-ethics%e2%84%a2/comment-page-1/#comment-6580 Tim Ogilvy Wed, 16 May 2007 05:52:07 +0000 http://www.geoffreport.com/wp/2007/05/15/google-ethics%e2%84%a2/#comment-6580 Its an interesting question Geoff.. How dependant is google indexing on random database processes, and how much of it is deliberately priotised or interventionally ranked? If its a databasing monster then effectively goolge can't be blamed for the fact that the s#!t floats to the top... whether they want to decide to have an ethics committee who look for and adress such bais is another question. I was thinking about that in relation to a christian publishing company that published a book out of context that had some pretty damaging ramifications for australian young people as compared to what it meant in america where it was written. Are they responsible? They certainly have the opportunity to respond... but are they obliged to? I guess it depends on how you construct your ethics! Its an interesting question Geoff..

How dependant is google indexing on random database processes, and how much of it is deliberately priotised or interventionally ranked?

If its a databasing monster then effectively goolge can’t be blamed for the fact that the s#!t floats to the top… whether they want to decide to have an ethics committee who look for and adress such bais is another question.

I was thinking about that in relation to a christian publishing company that published a book out of context that had some pretty damaging ramifications for australian young people as compared to what it meant in america where it was written.

Are they responsible?

They certainly have the opportunity to respond… but are they obliged to? I guess it depends on how you construct your ethics!

]]> By: Stephen Chatelier http://www.geoffreport.com/wp/2007/05/15/google-ethics%e2%84%a2/comment-page-1/#comment-6579 Stephen Chatelier Wed, 16 May 2007 05:29:01 +0000 http://www.geoffreport.com/wp/2007/05/15/google-ethics%e2%84%a2/#comment-6579 oops, the <a href="http://www.conservapedia.com/Truth" rel="nofollow">link</a>... oops, the link…

]]> By: Stephen Chatelier http://www.geoffreport.com/wp/2007/05/15/google-ethics%e2%84%a2/comment-page-1/#comment-6578 Stephen Chatelier Wed, 16 May 2007 05:27:49 +0000 http://www.geoffreport.com/wp/2007/05/15/google-ethics%e2%84%a2/#comment-6578 Well, maybe wikipedia can't define truth, but <i>conservapedia</i> can (of course) and with such brevity too! Well, maybe wikipedia can’t define truth, but conservapedia can (of course) and with such brevity too!

]]> By: Paul http://www.geoffreport.com/wp/2007/05/15/google-ethics%e2%84%a2/comment-page-1/#comment-6575 Paul Wed, 16 May 2007 04:20:13 +0000 http://www.geoffreport.com/wp/2007/05/15/google-ethics%e2%84%a2/#comment-6575 In short, no, they don't have a responsibility. If anything, you're talking about the leader of a people group failing in their responsibility to understand and to be informed about decisions that will affect those people whom they serve. Arguing that Google have a responsibility to preserve truth? That's asking a lot of Google, when <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth" title="wikipedia" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a> can't even define it! In short, no, they don’t have a responsibility.

If anything, you’re talking about the leader of a people group failing in their responsibility to understand and to be informed about decisions that will affect those people whom they serve.

Arguing that Google have a responsibility to preserve truth?

That’s asking a lot of Google, when Wikipedia can’t even define it!

]]>