Excuse me but you started off with “A is B” and I pointed out that well actually A is constituted of things that are actually some B but mostly C and a lot of D. Too which you respond “oh but I believe fervently that the part of A that is B will win out” and there’s really no point in getting wrapped up in such circular idiocy - as I have just now done. Doh. Happy Christmas.
I am sorry if I misunderstood your tone, but I only detected "emotional contents" namely insult-type content, and very poor quantity of arguments. I'm not a closed one, I am genuinely interested by what you think that could prove me wrong, only you did not spell it out yet. For example, could you explicit A, B, C, D... ?
When Google makes something not responsible, or, worse, evil, the numerous "responsible" people that have proven to be part of the staff in the past (see the examples) will make a fuss.
Shortly the misdeed would be made public, widely commented, the pressure would make the corporation take countermeasures to repair their image. That's what happened in these 2 examples, and this mechanism is still active.
I'm not saying that this will work every time. I'm just highlighting that at Google this mechanism is particularly strong (and so the hate towards Google less understandable).
Of course new laws would be even more convincing, if only for those corporations where the self-control is weaker.
