← Back to context Comment by girvo 1 day ago The argument is that the scrutiny is in practice not sufficient, as usual in these cases. 3 comments girvo Reply vkou 1 day ago The argument generally doesn't demonstrate that. The argument generally goes:1. Google could do it.2. <This space is intentionally left blank>3. Therefore, Google is doing it!(Step 2 needs to be filled in a bit for it to be a good argument. Generally, analogies don't quite make the cut.) mring33621 1 day ago You are ignoring the value of previous experience:Please replace 'Google' with 'Profit-driven legal entity in the USA' and reread your argument.The parent is making an assumption, based on past experience, but is also Most Likely correct. andybak 18 hours ago At the risk of posting without adding anything substantive, I find this an exceedingly convincing argument.
vkou 1 day ago The argument generally doesn't demonstrate that. The argument generally goes:1. Google could do it.2. <This space is intentionally left blank>3. Therefore, Google is doing it!(Step 2 needs to be filled in a bit for it to be a good argument. Generally, analogies don't quite make the cut.) mring33621 1 day ago You are ignoring the value of previous experience:Please replace 'Google' with 'Profit-driven legal entity in the USA' and reread your argument.The parent is making an assumption, based on past experience, but is also Most Likely correct. andybak 18 hours ago At the risk of posting without adding anything substantive, I find this an exceedingly convincing argument.
mring33621 1 day ago You are ignoring the value of previous experience:Please replace 'Google' with 'Profit-driven legal entity in the USA' and reread your argument.The parent is making an assumption, based on past experience, but is also Most Likely correct. andybak 18 hours ago At the risk of posting without adding anything substantive, I find this an exceedingly convincing argument.
andybak 18 hours ago At the risk of posting without adding anything substantive, I find this an exceedingly convincing argument.
The argument generally doesn't demonstrate that. The argument generally goes:
1. Google could do it.
2. <This space is intentionally left blank>
3. Therefore, Google is doing it!
(Step 2 needs to be filled in a bit for it to be a good argument. Generally, analogies don't quite make the cut.)
You are ignoring the value of previous experience:
Please replace 'Google' with 'Profit-driven legal entity in the USA' and reread your argument.
The parent is making an assumption, based on past experience, but is also Most Likely correct.
At the risk of posting without adding anything substantive, I find this an exceedingly convincing argument.