In Google We Trust

[Cognisant]

Trust is the foundation of society, we don't always want to trust others but in many cases we get little choice, you can choose which bank you trust but you can't choose to avoid banks altogether (not easily anyway), you choose where to get your news, whose fashion/health/spiritual advice to follow, you trust the authority of the man in the policeman's uniform and that the government will make good use of your taxes, though you get little choice in the matter.

Even in science we trust, and the point has been made in the past that for this reason science is no different to any religion, that trust and faith are basically the same thing, which at the time I objected to because science is verifiable and religion is not, but upon reflection that verification is itself science and so the circular reasoning I use to support my belief in it isn't all that different to the circular reasoning that if there wasn't anything actually spiritual going on there wouldn't be religion.

Which is arguable, but still defensible.

So the point I'm building up to is that faith is quite a powerful force (I don't think it alters physical reality, although if you lose faith in your bank I'm sure your personal world will be turned upside down) and the foundation of faith is trust, hence the rise of atheism in the modern era as scandals, cults, and widely available historical information have tarnished religion's trustworthy image.

Which I think matters a whole lot more than anything to do with the mythology, people have been arguing about that for centuries and will probably argue for centuries to come, but it doesn't matter because you still get atheists/agnostics who go to church and associate with the religious community. Here we argue over whether or not god exists but it doesn't really matter, what matters is the question: can god be trusted?

Do you trust the church?
That's the real divide, atheism is just a symptom, it's the smoke rising from the fire.

I don't have a problem with that, though it would make a good topic for the spirituality board (Not Here!), because here I want to discuss how corporations like Google are rising to power on this commodity that religions and governments are losing.

So what makes someone/something trustworthy?
Consider all the examples at the start.

How could governments be more trustworthy?
How could banks be more trustworthy?
How do we increase trust in science?

How do we restore our faith in society?

 

[Architect]

I think trying to increase trust is futile. Trust is built in to the system as you say. You trust that your car will work, your toothbrush will actually clean your teeth, your water and food are clean, etc. What don't you trust? What people call "lack of trust" I'd call "mild discomfiture". Few people have the spine for all-out distrust.

 

[Cognisant]

I'm sure if there was a private information use scandal (say their servers get hacked) Google's stock prices would take a dive, probably not a catastrophic one, but still enough to get their attention in a "that obviously wasn't coincidental" kind of way.

 

[Cognisant]

Alternatively I think if a company found a way to artificially build trust with consumers they'd have a competitive edge, a bank especially and they clearly know it (given the content of their advertisements) and I'm sure there's ways of doing that that aren't already being done.

I wonder if it would be beneficial to have a single person held accountable as the bank's public leader, one person with (supposedly) absolute power and absolute accountability, I think people would like that, it's risky I know but if the guy's PR was handled like that of a politician I could easily imagine people picking "him" over a half dozen faceless competitors.

Especially if he maintains a good reputation for any significant length of time.

 

[Vrecknidj]

http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_zak_trust_morality_and_oxytocin.html

 

[Duxwing]

Remember that scientists are all presumably scrutinizing each others' work and thereby preserving the accuracy of scientific knowledge; hence, one only need to be sure that the scientific community at large is skeptical, honest, and scientific in order to trust in science. Religion is a whole different kettle of fish: not only are its methods and conclusions unverified, but one must also trust that the very human nature of religion makes it extremely prone to error. In other words, one need only trust that scientists are behaving as they 'ought to' because we already know that if they behave in such way, then they will produce accurate models. One must, however, not only trust religious figures to tell the truths that they perceive, but have faith in their untested and unverifiable methods of obtaining the aforementioned truths.

Trusting science takes one axiom, but having faith in religion takes two. By Occam's Razor, science wins.

-Duxwing

 

[EyeSeeCold]

The OP seems to be going in different directions, but:

I'm aware that Google is a data mining for-profit company and that its unparalleled acceptance is on the path to internet totalitarianism. It's kind of complicated though considering all the constructive returns; besides its convenient and versatile search services: Fiber, Maps and its Art Project, and others. The problem they could pose is not much of a problem now in the short term, so it's easy to accept them when the benefits are highlighted.

If you don't approve of them for your privacy, or as a whole, there are alternative services and 3rd party privacy services to protect yourself. Though it does little to acknowledge and deal with the looming issue of their omnipresence.

 

[walfin]

You can always use other search engines from time to time.

Yahoo's still around.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nisations-putting-public-interests-heart.html
In Google we trust (just as much as we do in God)

Google is on a par with God in terms of public trust, a study has revealed.

When asked to rank organisations they believe have their interests at heart, religious institutions came out on top for a very modest 17 per cent of people – exactly the same as the omnipresent internet search engine.​

 

[RaBind]

Even in science we trust, and the point has been made in the past that for this reason science is no different to any religion, that trust and faith are basically the same thing, which at the time I objected to because science is verifiable and religion is not, but upon reflection that verification is itself science and so the circular reasoning I use to support my belief in it isn't all that different to the circular reasoning that if there wasn't anything actually spiritual going on there wouldn't be religion.

I can't agree with this. Even if the evidence itself is science and therefore uses a sort of circular reasoning, science is reliable and consistent. Scientists usually all accept the fundamental theories of the universe, i.e. evolution, gravity and relativity. You could argue that all evidence for science are physical and there isn't any evidence to support science in a spiritual level, but I think many scientists feel the same sensation of awe and astonishment, towards science, that religious people feel towards god. Also there isn't any evidence of anything existing outside physical reality, meaning the universe; such as a spirit or a ghost or anything really. I understand that this is also circular reasoning though
On the other hand religious people are very different. Some take their teachings literally while others interpret them. The people who take the bible (mostly fundamentalists) have a bad image in the media imo; which is good because it shows that people can actually think for themselves and recognize bullshit when they see it. Still the interpretations , made by those who interpret the teachings of their religion, themselves are even more varied. There are a lot of contradictions in the teachings of most religions and they are simply not as reliable as the knowledge derived from science. Don't mean to derail your thread but it is kinda linked to the subject.

Reliability determines whether people trust their own view of other things. For example it is a reliable view that some businessmen will continue to whatever is in their power to benefit themselves, even if it means causing harm to others. For views to be reliable they have to have been demonstrated countless times in the past and it should be possible to make predictions of the future based on it. Testing predictions is similar to conducting an experiment.
Corporations such as google and wikipedia are increasing the trust they receive from people because they have demonstrated themselves to be reliable and therefore trustworthy.

 

[Architect]

I don't trust Facebook because it's a closed ecosystem with a history of trying to use my data without my permission. I don't use any of its products.

I don't trust Apple because it's a closed company with a totalitarian mindset. I use a lot of its products out of necessity.

I trust Google and give it all of my data, including where I am and what I am doing most of the day, because it's open about what it is doing and has the philosophy of "we don't want your data (like Facebook), we just want you to share it with us".

Subtle difference maybe, but that is what trust is built on. Plus I know a lot of Googlers.

 

[~~~]

Is Google as open as it was in the past?

 

[Tor__Hershman]

In Go D Wet Rust

 

[Etheri]

I think trying to increase trust is futile. Trust is built in to the system as you say. You trust that your car will work, your toothbrush will actually clean your teeth, your water and food are clean, etc. What don't you trust? What people call "lack of trust" I'd call "mild discomfiture". Few people have the spine for all-out distrust.

There seems to be a decent amount of distrust in certain areas people still don't fully understand. Generally speaking (and generalising quite abit). Sure, it might be mild discomfiture rather, but the mistrust gets stronger as people get less options. Governments and nuclear energy come to mind.

 

[scorpiomover]

Dude, I don't know if you follow the news, but here's a heads up:

WE DON'T TRUST GOOGLE. WE CHOOSE THE COMFORTS OF THE INTERNET OVER OUR OWN DATA SAFETY.

WE ARGUE THAT GOOGLE IS TRUSTWORTHY, TO JUSTIFY CONTINUING TO GAIN THE COMFORTS OF THE INTERNET, WHEN REASON SAYS IT'S TOO DANGEROUS.

THIS IS HOW WE THINK: COMFORT FIRST, SAFETY LAST, AND REASON TO JUSTIFY THOSE CHOICES.

Spoiler

1) There is a current ongoing scandal with some American guy called Edward Snowden. Been making all the news. He said that CIA has been keeping tabs on our internet searches and emails via big internet compnaies like Microsoft, Google and Facebook.

2) For several years now, there has been a lot of reports on the fact that Google has basically stored every single search anyone has ever done on Google. It's all being analysed as well by Google, called "Google Analytics". Ostensibly, it's being done to help us. However, at the same time, it means they have all your searches and are analysing it, in ways that you don't know, and if someone at Google wanted to, they could use that data nefariously.

3) Gmail doesn't delete your emails. Even Yahoo and Microsoft have to make backups of their servers, which means that Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and everyone else, also have all your emails.

4) Microsoft, Google, Facebook and any other companies based in the USA, have been required to turn over all your data, if requested, by any American government intelligence and/or law enforcement agencies, for as long as they've been around. Your data was always at risk of being exposed to the CIA, and their policy documents showed that.

5) Facebook keeps tabs on you. Also, it deletes your friends that have different political affiliations to you.

6) Microsoft. Well, justice cases. 'Nuff said.

I've known about much of this stuff for several years now. It was on the late-night technology programmes.

So I've known for years, that Google, Microsoft, Facebook, et al, have been involved in things that would make a banker or a news hacker blush.

Maybe the general public didn't know until now. But now, they do.

So obviously, "In Google we do NOT trust".

However, I haven't heard anyone suggest that they've stopped going on the internet because of the CIA watching us via the internet.

So obviously, the reason that people are acting as if they trust in Google, is not because they actually trust it. It's because we're all hopelessly hooked on the internet.

Over ten years ago, I saw what happened when companies' computer systems went down. Every time, the company ground to a halt. Businesses got so used to the benefits of an IT system, they don't know how to cope without one anymore.

I've seen what happens when a single forum site goes down. Mass panic amongst its members.

We might use something else, if there was something else out there. Maybe Bing. But Bing is just Microsoft's version of Google. Pretty much the same thing, but with a different name.

We're all "trusting" in Google, the way we trust airplanes. We don't trust airplanes. But given the choice between going on an airplane or not going abroad for their yearly holiday, most people would choose to take the risk. We're just too committed to our holidays to be willing to be sceptical of airplanes.

Likewise, we've got so used to the internet, that we don't know how to cope without it. Given the choice between being free from CIA surveillance and the internet, almost all of us are choosing the internet. The tiny handful who don't, well, they're off the grid, and you don't know them, because you're on the internet and they're not.

 

[r4ch3l]

We're all "trusting" in Google, the way we trust airplanes. We don't trust airplanes. But given the choice between going on an airplane or not going abroad for their yearly holiday, most people would choose to take the risk. We're just too committed to our holidays to be willing to be sceptical of airplanes.

Likewise, we've got so used to the internet, that we don't know how to cope without it. Given the choice between being free from CIA surveillance and the internet, almost all of us are choosing the internet. The tiny handful who don't, well, they're off the grid, and you don't know them, because you're on the internet and they're not.

Yup. If you want to keep up in this world and have a shot at survival/competition you can't question or think too hard about everything. And so we have a society of people who don't because we are all individuals who want to survive and meet our human needs.

I think trying to increase trust is futile. Trust is built in to the system as you say. You trust that your car will work, your toothbrush will actually clean your teeth, your water and food are clean, etc. What don't you trust? What people call "lack of trust" I'd call "mild discomfiture". Few people have the spine for all-out distrust.

Yes...trust and the progression of time are kind of in this chicken and egg dance where the more time goes by where something is a constant it becomes an assumption, something you don't notice. You "trust" (don't bother to question) it. But of course there's layers -- we don't choose to trust in gravity or in our next breath or in the fundamentals of reality and perception remaining constant, but we do (unless you're HP Lovecraft). Trust exists in a hierarchy and you could argue the the happiest, most highly-functioning people are the ones that know how to prioritize it (whether consciously or not).

I've been thinking about this a lot upon being introduced to this idea of low-latent inhibition...it seems my way of perceiving mirrors this concept and that instead of trusting that things are as they were I over-observe and analyze. I can see how this could be a part of schizoid personalities (pattern recognition skills but also delusions, social problems).

 

[addictedartist]

Google wants all information available to cyberspace. Web bots consistantly scan the interwebz, maybe you don't believe in clairvoyants but if their powers held weight wouldnt the government employ every single one of them according to a criteria that legitimized them such as reading thoughts or predicting future events. Wouldnt they do the same for hackers; wouldnt they employ any tool available to them. Thats all google is; a tool. Science is a tool. Religion is a tool. They are meant to build and fix things, which can terraform and rehabilitate a dying planet from its plagues and restore life . When our equipment is right accomplishing anything is achievable. Its not enough that we are winning ; somebody has to lose. The illusion is reintroduced to reality as the curtain which hides the hypocrisy of the actors of the divine comedy in this apocolyptic endgame, the director reveals the chemical marriage of the bioelectrical soul to a system of memetic control. The contract the world wants is your life for a death of worth, the newest chapter is about the mission and those who choose to abandon themselves to escape responsibility of the here and now. You can't trust media by its coverage.