Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> the act in question is personally offensive in a way that what Google does is not.

A perceived, harmless, unintentional and nonetheless remediated offense is worse than the continuous abuse of power and anti-user practices from Google, Microsoft and Apple. It might seem justified to you, but to me it's just displaced indignation and illustrates why we will forever live in this corporate dystopia.





I wonder if you would be describing it as perceived, harmless, and unintentional if Google had done the same thing.

It certainly wasn't remediated, given that the donations received were not refunded. "Stops doing fraud when caught" is not remediation.


My moral compass does not change based on who is being accused, but context is fundamental to make a proper judgment.

It is hard to come up with a situation where Google would be doing these types of tricks, because Google is already the dominant player in the market and they don't want to create products that cannibalize their own revenue streams.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: