Jon Pretty

What “background” do you mean? I’ve posted the screenshots and links I have at hand, which are fairly self-contained and explanatory, and I’ve said I’ll ask around for more. Also sure, maybe “defend” isn’t the right word, I should have said “minimize” or “downplay”, I guess.

And I agree with you on the sexism part - it's pretty clear. But the racism part I don't see how to make the leaps you're making. There must be some background I'm missing. I'm not minimizing the harm paulp's comments cause.

I've been friend of Paul's for several years, and I will make the assertion that he's not racist. If I thought he were, I wouldn't entertain a continued friendship with him. I will gladly put up with him being obnoxious (to me, at least) but not racist.

I will also assert that he can be his own worst enemy in trusting that "facts speak for themselves". I've spoken to him specifically about that tweet, because it leans far too heavily either on context which most people don't have, or some amount of charity.

I know that his issue is with his perception of Google's censorship. He has ranted to me ad nauseum about it. He's made it very clear to me that he has zero interest in the actual search query, and 100% interest in illustrating Google's manipulation of search results.

FWIW, I don't think you're wrong to be disturbed by the tweet. It's ambiguous, and unnecessarily so. Better examples of search manipulation which don't show Google doing something actually *good* were probably available, and Paul's basically an idiot for choosing that one.

I also share @runT1ME's concern about offering any sort of defense to a tweet like that, and putting my own credibility on the line in the process. But as I have chosen to remain friends with Paul, I also can't let it go unanswered.