zlacker

>>pabs3+(OP)
> Nobody really expects to be able to find anything of value in a Google search now

This is a categorically false premise. The kind of statement that only makes sense when you're in a deep bubble and entirely removed from the average person's use of the internet.

Deliberately removing yourself from Google is fine for the author who is more concerned about taking an ideological stance than they are about being discoverable, but removing yourself from Google is terribly bad advice for anyone who wants to help people find their content.

Many people do use Google to find content and people, even if you don't.

>>Aurorn+Nm
> categorically false

What does categorically false mean?

>>wolver+GX1
False category. Like saying an apple is a vegetable. Categorically false.

Here, the category of "no one" is incorrect. Correct category may be, as per the comment, "those taking an ideological stance."

>>pickin+ty3
Because I was curious about this: the use of "categorically" in the phrase "categorically false" doesn't directly relate to the concept of "categories" as groups or classes of things. Turns out it's actually related to the philosophical use of the term which originated with Aristotle and was further developed by Kant (see "categorical imperative" on Wikipedia).

"categorically" in this situation is used to emphasize the absolute, unambiguous, and unconditional nature of the falseness.