THBT On Net Balance, Google Should Uphold Users' Privacy
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Pro will argue that Google should stop tracking people, their browsing history, etc. thus upholding the users' right to privacy.
Con will argue otherwise.
Burden of proof is shared.
the right to be let alone, or freedom from interference or intrusion. Information privacy is the right to have some control over how your personal information is collected and used.
a multinational, publicly-traded organization built around the company's hugely popular search engine. Google's other enterprises include Internet analytics, cloud computing, advertising technologies, and Web app, browser and operating system development.
An antihero is a central character in a story, movie, or television show that lacks conventional heroic attributes you'd find in a traditional hero. They are often defined by the traits they share with an antagonist. They use, at times, unsavory methods to get the job of a traditional hero done.
- They gather data, which many companies do, with the intent to improve their services to the highest degree possible for each individual at as cost-effective a price as possible (after all, their search engine is free despite being as in-depth and precise as it is).
Data makes it much easier for your company to understand what your customers want from your company, the specific products/services they're looking for, and even how they prefer to interact with your brand.When you know more about your customers, you can tweak everything about your business to better fit their needs. You can also improve the ways in which you communicate with your target market, optimize your website to improve the user experience, and much more.
- Their sheer size and capacity, while enabling them to gather more data than most data-gathering corporations, is also reason to feel safe and secure. Remember that since they do work with data and coding, they have some of our species’ finest minds in the field working for them. While a certain snippet of a Cloud database may be breached at some point, their reaction time and capacity to ‘contain’ the breach to a minimal level surpasses that of their competitors by far, despite being the company that most hackers would be motivated to hack.
- It’s easy to point at Edward Snowden or people similar to him in stance and to then call Google the ‘bad actor’ but that’s thinking far too simple about an incredibly complex matter. Google was one of the first and foremost companies of its kind to offer full scope (information) and clearly laid out and explained options list (control) over what it’s doing with your data and why you may not want to opt-out of it. Out of all the major companies at its level or close to it, meaning ones such as Microsoft (who own Bing), Apple, Amazon and more, Google was the first and almost still only one to offer this depth of information and control of its own volition (this was done regardless of the EU laws mandating it for all web services).
- Expert Source: “People will not use new technology if they do not have sufficient trust in the safeguarding of privacy, security, and safety and it is particularly true in compels system such as the IoT."
- Google's‘ Filter bubble’ problem. “It’s a manipulation of your search results based on your data.” [6]It means it tracks the information even user is not logged in to the google account.
- Even with location history paused, some Google apps automatically store time-stamped location data without asking
- “It has been revealed that Google can store two billion users’ location minute-by-minute regardless of permission.”
- An associated press investigation found that many Google services on Android devices and iPhone store your location data even you’ve used a privacy setting that says it will prevent Google from doing so.
- More than 50 percent of people between the age of 18-34 can’t differentiate between an ad and an organic result on Google
- Expert Source: “People will not use new technology if they do not have sufficient trust in the safeguarding of privacy, security, and safety."
- There are over 63,000 Google searches each second. That’s almost 227 million an hour and about 5.4 billion Google searches per day.
- Google, the most popular search engine controls 90% of the global search engine market.
- Google has over 246 million unique US visitors. That’s more than 75% of the US population.
- Google's‘ Filter bubble’ problem. “It’s a manipulation of your search results based on your data.” [6]It means it tracks the information even user is not logged in to the google account.
- Even with location history paused, some Google apps automatically store time-stamped location data without asking
- “It has been revealed that Google can store two billion users’ location minute-by-minute regardless of permission.”
- An associated press investigation found that many Google services on Android devices and iPhone store your location data even you’ve used a privacy setting that says it will prevent Google from doing so.
- More than 50 percent of people between the age of 18-34 can’t differentiate between an ad and an organic result on Google
- Lack of or inadequate consent from Google and Facebook users for the procedure of obtaining and sharing their personal data
- Insufficient user’s access and control of their personal information.
- Risk of re-identifying anonymous personal data.
- search-query logs may raise serious privacy problems
- Google's "Secret database" is a big target for hackers and government alike, making it more dangerous to store the information
- Their sheer size and capacity, while enabling them to gather more data than most data-gathering corporations, is also reason to feel safe and secure. Remember that since they do work with data and coding, they have some of our species’ finest minds in the field working for them. While a certain snippet of a Cloud database may be breached at some point, their reaction time and capacity to ‘contain’ the breach to a minimal level surpasses that of their competitors by far, despite being the company that most hackers would be motivated to hack.
- Governments may be able to grab people based on suspicious searches, destroying the nature of democracy
- Europe has its own privacy laws established to prevent regimes from forcing citizens into submission. Would con argue that looking information up slightly quicker defeats your own liberty and safety? I doubt it.
Forfeit from Con automatically grants Pro conduct.
Regarding arguments, I'll mention two issues that contributed to this outcome. The first is that it's unclear precisely where the split is in this debate, and Pro muddies it a lot in R3. He basically says that it's the difference between having any upholding of privacy and having none, which may have been accurate to the debate if it had been brought up in R1, but comes across as an effort to shift the burdens last minute to favor himself. It's all the more strange since the description includes a change from Pro (i.e. Google should stop tracking people, which is also distinct from the scenarios of tracking but providing information to users, and as such that should be Con ground) and no necessary change from Con. Con can uphold status quo. Pro cannot. Con can basically take any position that doesn't substantially reduce tracking efforts. So, Pro, either start off by clarifying your case, or uphold what's in the description. Either way, it could have improved upon this because it made your position slippery in the end.
The second issue is that Con got away with a scenario that sets up his whole case: namely, that any ground that Google cedes in tracking users will be picked up by some other company. I don't see any response to this from Pro (I would have easily bought that Google will still remain the major player in the field and that no one can pirate their search engine or other sources of data, meaning that Google essentially walls off a large portion of the Internet from data tracking). This is big problem because it makes almost all of his harms scenarios non-unique. I guess you could argue that Google is a uniquely worse actor, but the only point that Pro has on that seems to stem from their size, for which Con gives me a strong reason to be grateful: they have little reason to sell data, they use it judiciously to help in criminal cases, and they are far better at protecting data. I don't know how much I buy each of these personally, but I don't get any strong reasons not to believe them within the debate. Pro tells me that governments can misuse the data, but doesn't give me examples beyond China's unwillingness to provide access to Google, which isn't really applicable. Pro tells that it can still be hacked, but doesn't tell me why Google's protections wont be effective or why (and I was surprised this is missing) it's so bad to have a giant pile of information in one place, meaning that even fewer instances of hacking could be more damaging. It also really doesn't help that I don't have a response to Google's having to get this information to keep their bottom line, a point Con made several times. So, that just leaves me with Pro's impacts regarding privacy, almost all of which appear to be slippery slopes rather than well-articulated scenarios. Why does the right to privacy and informed consent affect a person's every day? I can think of more than a few reasons, but I need to see them play out in the debate. These bigger impacts might look more alluring, but they're harder to prove and easy to undermine, as Con did several times.
So, based on these factors, I end up voting Con on arguments.
I actually would remove faux law's vote because it insufficiently explained the tied arguments. I think his conduct vote was fine and I avoid falsely accusing my opponents of 'essentially conceding' unless I can objectively explain why and how.
thanks for the reviewed vote. I may have still lost, but I think it's important to establish standards.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0:1, 1 point to CON
>Reason for Decision: See Comments
>Reason for Mod Action:
Ragnar asked for me to review his decision and do as I see fit with it. In fact it seems he's changed his mind on this issue.
Upon my evaluation, this vote does not properly ground their conduct allocation.
Citing our own Voting Policy:
"Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate. Common examples are repeatedly using personal attacks instead of arguments, committing plagiarism or otherwise cheating.
The disrespect of even a single forfeiture necessitates this penalty unless there is reason to withhold it. Repeated forfeitures are grounds for casting conduct only votes without any consideration to arguments (continued in Forfeitures).
Invalid if: Both sides had similar types and/or magnitude of misbehavior, or it is too minor for a reasonable person to be significantly distracted from the topic. Further, a conduct penalty is not warranted for mere dislike of the topical contentions or weak argumentation."
The voter ignored a forfeit, instead assigning points against the non-forfeiting side. This would be fine if PRO's infraction was serious enough to be considered excessively abusive, outright toxic, or distracting from the topic. However, what PRO did wasn't a serious enough infraction (a rhetorical exaggeration at worse, a common one in the debate realm at that) to warrant conduct allocation against them even without the forfeit.
Ragnar now echoes this sentiment: " It might pass if con did not indicate a link between security and privacy (which would make pro have massively misrepresented con). However, ultimately I think I was wrong, due to the dangerous precedent if a single turn of phrase allowed not mere assignment of conduct, but to such a degree as to even override a forfeiture."
Argument: This was a frustrating debate to read, mostly due to what was not said in argument over what was said, and that critique is shared by both parties, Pro and Con. Since one cannot vote beyond what is actually said, I can only judge on the basis of the content present, and not what a voter might wish was there. Both parties left unused arguments on the table. I could possibly lean to Con because Pro did not link the Topic statement with what appears to be the definitive resolve in Description, as well as that Pro fails to define his terms in Description such that both parties have a set of "rules" at least by syntax. However, even though Con does offer a definition of "privacy" in R1 the subsequent arguments vary on adherence to that definition. Both parties dance around that definition, and neither adequately settle it to this voter's satisfaction. Tie vote.
Sources: Both parties offer adequate sources, and sources do justify arguments, but no argument plus sources sways either way relative to source material offered. Tie vote.
Legibility: adequate on both sides to understand their positional statements. Tie vote.
Conduct: Pro loses this point by the R4 claim that Con "essentially conceded" when no round's argument by Con had any statement that might be construed to agree with Pro's claim. Even if somehow, Con's statements in "Comments" might have alluded to the possibility of concession, and though another member effectively makes the accusation to Con, following a comment by Con [and this exchange is within the timing of Con's R3 posting], Con's comment says nothing of the sort. And, to be clear, the Comments section is outside the parameters of the debate, so any comment there, short of notation of sources, is irrelevant. Further, although Con forfeited R4, the single forfeiture does not figure into any decision against Con. Therefore, point to Con.
No problem. Got to keep this one short for once.
Thanks for the vote.
It's also my specialty, though I rarely do it and more usually take your side but Google in particular I have found is the most unfairly demonised of the tech companies. It's a genuine antihero and you can say and do more on YouTube than any other equivalent platform that has the reach it has.
I see. I have a good idea why privacy is important, but that seems to be more morality/philosophy based. Ironically, TheWeakerEdge may have done better than me in this debate. There's some computer science related information here, but I'm never good at grasping at very vague ideals. A well deserved lost.
Being outdated isn't really the problem, nor is the evidence, per say. I tend to start every debate with a little bit of burdens analysis to frame the discussion, and I think that could go a long way in your case. Even better here would have been to include just a little bit of what the actual policy would be, e.g. "Google will make a public acknowledgement that its privacy policies have been bad, and will take x, y and z steps to address them." Apart from that, it's difficult to establish precisely why privacy matters without getting too slippery, but you could always talk about why it's good for their bottom line and how it is likely to shape the industry. The notion that personalized ad experiences have generally been good, a point that RM made, is contrary to what most people in the US probably think about it. Beyond that, you could just talk about how it reshapes the industry to address differences in perspective on privacy worldwide. You mentioned the EU, but it never really factored as an impact. Why does it matter that the EU has a different perspective on their practices, and how would they perceive a proactive effort on the part of Google to change how it acts to better suit that market? Not everything has to be sourced, but you can give persuasive reasons why these changes would have meaningful impacts for the company as well as just enhancing trust in a system that many of us rely on daily.
any extra tips? I noticed that even my cited experts seemed to mostly resort to slippery slope related arguments. Or are the 2010~2016 articles too outdated, and there needs to be more evidence? I couldn't find any more recent articles negating Google's bottom line. The journals could only talk of how Google was breaking European laws and such, rather than the fundamental ideals being wrong.
well done... you defeated me in my expertise, computer science -- privacy is one of the related subjects!
(I should probably stop playing devil's advocate though, I widely agreed that Google is doing better and that the user's choice of consent is more important than the actual "privacy without question" that the premise gave the illusion of arguing)
Quoting from the Voting policy relative to Conduct: "Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate." I perceived a penalty against Pro for declaring a concession by Con when that concession was not offered. I considered the charge as excessive sportsmanship abuse. It simply was a matter of violation, it did not need to be said and would have made the vote a tie had it not been said. I find that to meet the criteria of a Conduct vote. Mod Ragnar agreed with my justification, so everyone just be still and learn by experience. Such declarations when not warranted will bite the arse that does it.
Are you SURE a slightly exaggerated claim of “concession” violates conduct point? I see Oromagi claiming dropped arguments all over the place, and I don’t think my strategy was all that different. We’re allowed to claim our opponents said one thing and explain why we think their argument essentially defeats their own argument. It’s like saying we were on the same side all in all.
come one, come all, feel free to vote on this.
I never claimed you exceptionally biased, I said "biased" that's all, no more no less. You responded with bare assertions. The fact that you've failed to even slightly rebuke my example is clear enough to me. You are biased, by what? Could be a number of things, against me? Not necessarily. You could be biased in favor of someone else and then I'd lose out at neutral standings with you, could be the opposite way around - see I didn't claim one way of the other just that you were.
Lets see, I'm so overwhelmingly biased that I can't consider anything outside my bias to have merit.
I dislike RM so much, that I left a vote mildly in his favor in place...
I hate forfeitures so much, that when a voter considers something else to be worse (even in a case where I disagree), I leave the votes in place if they justify it...
How are either of these examples of me being controlled by bias?
You can argue the vote should be removed on many grounds, but claiming it's only left in place due to my well documented bias against forfeitures is crazy.
You can think what you think, I believe that using logic is how we should evaluate such claims, and considering what's happening here in terms of everybody aside from you and Fauxlaw thinking the conduct point is not allowed here. The counter argument is very clear.
> "biased"
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/you-keep-using-that-word-i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means
By all means, you can disagree with my vote, and, by all means, vote, yourself, but not merely because you oppose mine. You have to justify how you vote, as I did.
Yes, it is rude to falsley claim the opponent conceded, but it is actually warranting a conduct point if a debater forfeits a round. I don't think the former is more justified deducting a conduct point than the latter.
It makes sense when Pro claims Con conceded before Con forfeited. In debate, when Pro is the initiator, Pro is, comparative to baseball, the away team, which plays in the top frame of each inning. Con is the home team, playing in the bottom frame of innings. Four innings in this game. Pro cited Con's concession in the top frame of the last, fourth inning. Con did not forfeit until the bottom frame, apparently assuming he had argued sufficient in 3 innings to win the game. But, how did Pro know Con would forfeit in the bottom frame? In my vote, I disagreed, the difference being the premature call of concession. Con simply did not concede; he assumed his 3-inning arguments sufficed. It was a simple misplay of chronology.
After all, forfeiting a single round in a four-round debate is not an automatic loss, and does not deserve loss of the conduct point. No, but Pro's premature claim of concession does lose it. Ragnar agreed.
Ragnar is biased in more ways than one.
Regardless, I don't want to win by that vote alone. Feel free to vote, I am not ashamed of my performance in this debate, I played very defensive and strategic, I believe.
Soooooo I'm actually going to have to break ranks and agree that the conduct point wasn't really justified. Ragnar's judgement supersedes mine though. I'll probably vote myself if I get the chance.
It makes no sense to give conduct to the debater that forfeited a round.
You know, I'm starting to see why other people find you biased. I usually agree with Fauxlaw's votes, they are very good at delivering insightful reviews of a debate; however it is extremely loose to say that Undefeatable saying that Rationalmadman essentially conceded was unwarranted.... especially because he literally forfeited the last round, and at the same time - delete my vote for not being super specific which argument was brand new in the last round... uhuh, justifiable, sure.
I'll try to get something going. It's been a hectic week, but if I do get one up, it'll be closer to the deadline. Please remind me.
Anyways. Would appreciate a vote
How was my mere exaggeration with “essentially conceded” unsportsmanlike or toxic? Sure, it’s fancy but it’s no different from oromagi’s usual “list of dropped points”.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: conduct to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Arguments as tied is well justified. Conduct, while the voting policy specifies even a single forfeiture as calling for it unless there is some reason not to... Indeed a reason for the inverse of the presumptive award is listed and expanded upon.
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
There are three types of tied votes:
(1) Ones which allot zero points. They have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, and are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons.
(2) Ones which cancel themselves out. While the category assignments may serve as feedback to the debaters, there is no still meaningful impact for moderation consider. These are in essence the same as the previous type.
(3) Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for repeated forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation.
Conduct is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate.
**************************************************
Please remember tabula rasa when you vote.
Allow me some time and I'll get back to you on it
hey, is this conduct point allowed? Seems a little absurd. I don't think Pro meant that con actually conceded, but that he basically dropped arguments (which I wouldn't vote conduct either way)
Bump
Feel free to toss in a vote if you have time
There was nothing more to say, just retireration. I had to do stuff IRL and sleep.
dat forfeit... ouch.
"(some of which were actually addressed in my Round 2) "
I meant in my Round 1.
Welcome back
you can argue that if you want.
Is this resolution, "Google ought to stop tracking people.." etc? I'm asking if this an ethical/moral dilema.