The problem with the colloquial 'conspiracy' (as opposed to the standard legal definition of people working together towards a generally nefarious goal), is that they are impossible to disprove, for the most part. Evidence to the contrary is disregarded, and the lack of supporting evidence is used as additional evidence ('the real evidence is being hidden by those in power').
What I see in these documents, and based on responses, is that the case is strong. I do see that it is from states that disagree with me philosophically and politically. This information is irrelevant and is categorization error and outgroup bias; the same things that I would request my current political opposition to give up, without success.
If we all suffer from these cognitive illusions and refuse to abandon them, then we cannot grow as a society or a people; we can never have a shared understanding because the experiences I am basing decisions on are not a real.
Discussing a "Vast right-wing conspiracy against Google" might be falsifiable with perfect information, but what percentage of 'right wing' conspirators must there be before it is determined true? How many 'right-wing' members - of which there are at least 74M - would I have to poll to find out if the conspiracy is vast?
I don't deny that we are in an [mis]information war, but the boundaries of that are much better known and are often discussed by security experts.
> irrelevant and is categorization error and outgroup bias
I agree and appreciate you making this point. Any assumptions about the validity of the allegations in a legal complaint is unrelated to the motivations of those bringing the charges. The need for consistency and impartiality is why the evidence-based, adversarial justice system evolved.
I don't think the participation in this suit of run-of-the-mill republicans is suspicious, but the person to whom I replied isn't one, he's a prominent right-wing ideologue. Hoover Institution, Manhattan Institute, and founded what I think can be accurately described as the alt-right ad network. Perhaps this person was simply consulted as an expert in the ad business, but as I said initially, it does nothing to counter the idea that this suit originates from the smoky backrooms of right-wing think tanks.
Yeah but like... so what? Should the suit be thrown out just because it was conceived by people you don’t agree with? If so, do you think someone else should be allowed to open a similar case based on the work of a “right-wing think tank”? Should we just let Google exploiting it’s position forever because republicans don’t like it?
Given the merits of the case itself, and it's long term importance and short-term impact, I think the inclination to drag the discussion into political debate is not useful
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally. Google is big enough and manipulative enough to have fully earned its enemies on both sides of the political aisle.
