That's a great story and a beautiful reminder that relying on data to make decisions is not always a good strategy.
I sometimes feel like people forget that data is an effect of our decisions and actions, not the other way around.
A bit off topic, but this is also a reminder that even conspiring to put a miniscule banner can't go unnoticed, let alone one with much grander objectives like inserting chips into billions of vaccines, or fake a moon landing.
Excellent comment. Yes, it's terrifying to think of the social power of one silly banner on a huge website - that the bosses don't even notice! It's also really true, and I see it all the time on HN, that people expect data to make decisions rather than understanding that their own bias is shaping the data. Much of this ML data analysis approach is like shaping a huge statue on tiny legs, each person making it bigger and bigger at the top until it falls over.
The best thing about this story is it reminds you to be a rebel.
> A bit off topic, but this is also a reminder that even conspiring to put a miniscule banner can't go unnoticed, let alone one with much grander objectives like inserting chips into billions of vaccines, or fake a moon landing.
I'm sorry I have to defend the tinfoil hatters here, but I think it's important to note the alleged situations are different:
In the OP, we have a small group inside a large organisation (Google) conspiring "against" the organisation (even if ultimately to its benefit).
Most conspiracy theories seem to assume the whole organisation (government, military-industrial complex, NSA/CIA/..., lizard people, etc) conspires against the general public. So, not so much an actual conspiracy, more like large-scale corporate projects which are hidden from the public and against the public interest. Inside the organisation, there would be no need to keep anything particularly secret as the conspiracy is a perfectly well-approved project of the organisation.
Of course stuff like fake moon landings and vaccine microchips are still bullshit - however, events like the Snowden leaks or numerous cold war CIA operations which have been confirmed by now show that in principle, it's possible to keep large-scale projects completely unknown to the general public for an extensive timeframe.
I think if anything, the OP could be a sign how hard it would be to reveal such projects. Because any potential whistleblowers would find themselves in a similar situation where they have to conspire against the organisation they are working in.
I sometimes feel like people forget that data is an effect of our decisions and actions, not the other way around.
A bit off topic, but this is also a reminder that even conspiring to put a miniscule banner can't go unnoticed, let alone one with much grander objectives like inserting chips into billions of vaccines, or fake a moon landing.