Just to check , are you asking:

"What does a $75m investment from the company that famously removed "don't be evil" as their motto have to do with evil?"

Doesn't sound difficult to draw the straight line there.

edit: just in case you haven't had news access for the past 20 years, that's not the only reason someone might have an issue with funding from google.

and we're an electrified ball of meat in a biological mech-suit, with lots of tiny electrical impulses being bounced around inside a biological matrix (no , not the film, look it up)

There are plenty of shit tools.

I'll add emphasis and extra context because given the replies it seems i haven't communicated the actual question very well.

someone posted :

Technology exists to serve us. If it murders us, even if we tell it to, it is the problem.

To that i responded with

Why does it exist to serve us?

Seems that was lacking context, so here is the emphasis version with all the context.

QUESTION START

Yes, technology exists and will kill us if we design it well enough and then tell it to kill us (not murder, because that implies intent)

It sounds like you think technology exists only to serve us, i would like to know if you do, in fact, think that and if so, why?

Technology will do exactly as it's designed to do , that includes poorly designed technology, if we design something for a task and fuck up that design/implementation badly enough then the technology will not be serving our intended purposes.

Also what is your opinion on the idea that technology can exist/be designed just to exist, not to serve directly; Think "art installations" or systems designed with emergent (unplanned) behaviours as a goal.

QUESTION END

Note i didn't mention sentience, sapience, AGI or any other form of independent machine intelligence.

That's not even required (though it would most likely be more accurate ) , there are some easy , low-hanging fruit answers to this question that don't need expertise.

I'm just interested in seeing if they really think popularity is the best option here.

Read it? probably some, understood it? not if previous responses are to be believed.

and nothing of value was lost.

edit: damn, that's a high percentage of sodium for pointing at a thing that provably exists in the modlog.

Uhg, the self-serving know it all liberal who answers their own questions and thinks they’re 100% correct is a big part of the unpopularity of Democrats and a huge enabling factor for Trump.

Self-serving applies to almost everyone, especially in politics, that's not a "left" specific trait.

Answering your own questions is annoying in a scenario where the side being asked the question will respond with an actual and coherent answer.

I'm not cherry-picking here, spin up almost any "debate" you'd consider "left vs right" (in the US at least) and consider how much of that is being done in good faith.

They both agreed that Mexican migration is the largest population migrating… But that point wasn’t acknowledged by the liberal, because they had something else to say…

According to your own edit 55% of illegal immigration is from Mexico, so that means 45% of immigration is not from mexico, perhaps the point being made is that if you look in to the percentage of raids per community it's probably not 55% mexican.

That doesn't refute or ignore the mexican percentage being what it is, it points out the apparent disparity in enforcement, which is probably the point.

…yep, and the liberal media thinks this comic is a great point in favour of their righteousness - when it’s EXACTLY why they lost, and why Republicans become more extreme. They just get so sick of the smug badgering that they just want to troll and annoy the left, to the point they’ll vote for Trump and his loose knit-wit antics.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume "they" in "they just get so sick" includes you, i could be wrong however.

Having said that, i don't disagree that not being able to appeal to a larger base was a major contributing factor in why they lost, at least in my opinion.

They lacked a coherent strategy and relied far too much on people understanding that the other side were grifters, a plan which ultimately worked so poorly that you now get elon musk as de-facto president.

But i will also acknowledge the difficulty in appealing to a base of people who include literal neo nazi's, standard bigots, people willing to join an insurrection and pretty much anyone who wholeheartedly subscribes to the current republican regime.

There are people in the middle ground, the (largely white) people systematically left behind by the system over many years.

Unfortunately such people are easy pickings for a groups of grifters with appealing soundbites and a proven track record of either not following through at all, or following through to the detriment of the people they are supposed to be serving.

The systems in place aren't designed to help these people, they are designed to give them just enough hope to keep them working.

Running on a platform of nice sounding lies is easier when you don't actually have to follow through.

If you have to become the party of nice sounding lies to appeal to enough of the voter base to gain power, is that a victory ?

No wonder Trump’s popularity with minorities increased. Maybe listen to the working class masses for a change, and accept they don’t pay attention to the same barage of identity politics the ivory tower does. Nor do they have the same class interests as that liberal elite.

Agreed, though they do in fact have shared interests it's just not apparent from the messaging.

[EDIT: Mexico makes up 55% of illegal migration. European countries aren’t even in the top 10 list of countries of origin. America is a downgrade for most Europeans, that lady’s smugness is unearned because if we’re going by the stats, India and Asia are the next largest problem areas.]

See the first point above.

You've pointed out why the statements made by the lady are correct in both a technical and literal perspective.

If you are seeing smugness here, that's indicative of who you are, for better or worse.

If you are going to be basing arguments on statements of fact your comparison should be factual.

One is subjective opinion and one is relatively objective fact ( assuming actual correctness and there not being some weird exception like a subset language or something ).

Unless you are personally the global arbiter of what is and isn't homophobia, in which case ignore me.

Downvotes with no actual reasoning behind them?

I am shocked, shocked i tell you.

They do yes, this is clearly marked as an opinion piece.

What i was trying to convey is to not expect stellar journalism, opinion or otherwise, from a media source that has built it's readership on sensationalism and tabloid shenanigans.

That is of course, just my personal opinion.

if someone pointing out that you are saying "fact" but aren't meeting any of the definitions of a fact seems like an attack to you i suspect you're probably having a bad time on the internet. Again you dodge most of the actual points of the conversation, probably intentionally.

Also i'm pretty sure "Fucking lmfao." has a redundant "Fucking" in it , but I'm not holding my breath on you caring about that given how this has gone so far.

Doesn't seem like this is going to go anywhere interesting, so I'll just add you to the blocklist and be happy nothing of value(to me) was lost.

And you're free to do so, that's the entire point of a decentralised system.

They aren't making decision for anyone but themselves, again, as is the point.

If you don't agree with whatever they do, find an instance you do agree with or start your own.

Staying or leaving has the same amount of personal agency.