10 ms·

It is scary how much power and influence Google now have in setting the agenda for public discourse. When this opens up to other "prominent figures and organiza

It is scary how much power and influence Google now have in setting the agenda for public discourse. When this opens up to other "prominent figures and organizations", it will be at Google's discretion who is worthy of the public's attention and which issues and areas will get this treatment. This seems a step beyond simply organising the world’s information. Even if it's with the best intentions, the fact is that they will have a significantly influence on the discourse itself.

gtf21 11y ago
The potential for Google to therefore decide who gets to speak, and therefore who doesn't, is terrifying.
- leppr 11y ago
  Terrifying? I assume you're living in a constant state of fear then, because television networks already have and use that power. On the contrary I'd say that in this field the more players there are, the better.
  - k-mcgrady 11y ago
    There are thousands of television channels. As far as most people are concerned, when it comes to search, there is only Google.
    - adventured 11y ago
      There are not thousands of television channels in the US that will broadcast political content such that presidential candidates can push their message across them. The average American household has access to just 150-200 TV channels, total. Most of those would never carry anything related to the election. The vast majority of those are specific content carriers: movies, music, on-demand, sports. You're down to having a few dozens channels (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNBC, MSNBC, local affiliates etc) that a candidate can push through. There are 2,200x tv stations in the US. Most of those are small, local stations with zero national or regional reach. There are thousands of online sites and platforms that at least have as large of an audience as those stations. All of those sites can be reached by almost anyone in the US, which is not true of the local TV stations. Further, there is nothing even remotely like: Reddit, Twitter, Wordpress, Tumblr, Facebook, et al. in the television realm, where just about anyone can reach a national audience if their message resonates (and do so for free). There is also nothing like the app options that are available online, whether Snapchat, Instagram, or voter reach apps like NationBuilder.
      - VLM 11y ago
        More importantly those 150-200 channels or few dozen political content channels are owned by a VERY small number of very large corporations. Five or so.
    - Reedx 11y ago
      But they're owned by about 6 companies: http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/democracyondeadline/mediaownership.html http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/democracyondeadline/media... The web is vastly more open and representative.
      - kuschku 11y ago
        In America, yes. Not everywhere else. Why do we have to make most of the western world worse, just because the result is better than what currently exists in the US?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >Terrifying? I assume you're living in a constant state of fear then, because television networks already have and use that power. First, there are lots of tv networks. Second, yes, regarding that matter, we SHOULD fear the power of tv networks. I don't even understand the reasoning here: "why do you call Google having curation/censorship power fearsome, since tv networks already have curation/censorship power?". Obviously because curation/censorship power of a level and above (e.g. not your local high school paper) is troubling.
    - leppr 11y ago
      The reasoning is simple: Instead of seeing Google as rising as a new kind of ruler, enforcing a new kind of authority, I think it's more appropriate to see it as grafting itself onto an already existing authority. So to me it's not clear cut whether the centralizing power Google brings with its resources overweights the decentralizing power from dividing such authority into more parts. And as an aside it also seems foolish to worry about this when said political system itself guarantees that the majority of the population can't be properly represented unless they agree with each other, which is precisely the problem media control solves.
  - gtf21 11y ago
    There's a behavioural difference here. If I don't see someone speak on a TV channel, then I don't assume they don't exist / aren't important. If I search for someone via Google / other search engine, and they don't come up, or their opponents come up far higher in the rankings than they do, then I imagine (without having done any proper studies on this) that it will influence my opinion of them more. I also don't buy the argument that Google having huge powers of, effectively, no-platforming is any less terrifying because TV channels have had it for a long time. This is just as bad!
- coldtea 11y ago
  That would be of concern (regarding elections), if the system wasn't a rigged, 2-party system for a century or so -- where there are strict conventions of who gets to be heard and who can run (including needing some millions of the campaign), with BS primaries, and party nominations and such.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Robadob 11y ago
Isn't this much the same as the apparent rumours of twitter suppressing conservative voices and hashtags? I've not looked into it in enough detail to decide whether its simply a conspiracy, but many popular internet services could be used to push political agendas.
- mtgx 11y ago
  Twitter likely did censor the #WhichHillary hashtag from two weeks ago. One of its executives was holding a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton a few days later.
hartpuff 11y ago
Even if Google was 100% unbiased politically, providing yet another major outlet for people who have no problem getting their message out already seems redundant, unless the point is just to reinforce existing power and influence. I don't expect them to promote any old blogger with an opinion (though I'd even prefer that to this), but giving a platform to marginal/dissident figures or organizations, from any part of the political spectrum, would at least serve some kind of interesting or useful purpose.
- sgift 11y ago
  > (...) giving a platform to alternative/marginal/dissident figures or organizations, from any part of the political spectrum, would at least have some point and be a lot more interesting. Sounds like a possible startup if there's a way to generate revenue from such a platform.
pappyo 11y ago
Does Google win by suppressing speech, even if those voices counter Google's ambitions? Google would do itself a disservice by cutting out people who rail against Google specifically or against what Google stands for generally. Google's bottom line is dependant on capturing all the data.
- kuschku 11y ago
  > capturing all the data. But not on displaying all the data. In fact, their whole business is to only show the data they believe you need right now. EDIT: Which makes it even easier to just "drop" controversial views that might challenge your opinion – the Filter Bubble effect is very real, and with every change that makes search more "relevant", it gets worse. EDIT2: If, additionally, a malicious entity – say, a government agency – would force Google to censor a topic, it would become a lot more problematic.
wslh 11y ago
> This seems a step beyond simply organising the world’s information. It is just the contrary since very few can post there. Then, if they prioritize these people/services on their search above others it turns the navigation path to a place owned by Google.
natch 11y ago
Clearly it's a direct assault on Twitter. This is no doubt the outcry they are hoping for, with the intent being to open it up fully to everyone qualified to be a Twitter user. The exclusivity is just to build hype and cachet for PR purposes.
mtgx 11y ago
Same thing with AMP "partnerships", which get shown at the top of a search with images and whatnot. Except those partnerships are mostly establishment corporate media. So just as we thought we'd escape from the brainwashing of corporate media from TV thanks to the Internet, I think Google, Facebook and Twitter even will play a big role on keeping the masses brainwashed by serving corporate media content to the majority of people, keeping them as brainwashed as ever.

gtf21 11y ago

The potential for Google to therefore decide who gets to speak, and therefore who doesn't, is terrifying.

leppr 11y ago
Terrifying? I assume you're living in a constant state of fear then, because television networks already have and use that power. On the contrary I'd say that in this field the more players there are, the better.
- k-mcgrady 11y ago
  There are thousands of television channels. As far as most people are concerned, when it comes to search, there is only Google.
  - adventured 11y ago
    There are not thousands of television channels in the US that will broadcast political content such that presidential candidates can push their message across them. The average American household has access to just 150-200 TV channels, total. Most of those would never carry anything related to the election. The vast majority of those are specific content carriers: movies, music, on-demand, sports. You're down to having a few dozens channels (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNBC, MSNBC, local affiliates etc) that a candidate can push through. There are 2,200x tv stations in the US. Most of those are small, local stations with zero national or regional reach. There are thousands of online sites and platforms that at least have as large of an audience as those stations. All of those sites can be reached by almost anyone in the US, which is not true of the local TV stations. Further, there is nothing even remotely like: Reddit, Twitter, Wordpress, Tumblr, Facebook, et al. in the television realm, where just about anyone can reach a national audience if their message resonates (and do so for free). There is also nothing like the app options that are available online, whether Snapchat, Instagram, or voter reach apps like NationBuilder.
    - VLM 11y ago
      More importantly those 150-200 channels or few dozen political content channels are owned by a VERY small number of very large corporations. Five or so.
  - Reedx 11y ago
    But they're owned by about 6 companies: http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/democracyondeadline/mediaownership.html http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/democracyondeadline/media... The web is vastly more open and representative.
    - kuschku 11y ago
      In America, yes. Not everywhere else. Why do we have to make most of the western world worse, just because the result is better than what currently exists in the US?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- coldtea 11y ago
  >Terrifying? I assume you're living in a constant state of fear then, because television networks already have and use that power. First, there are lots of tv networks. Second, yes, regarding that matter, we SHOULD fear the power of tv networks. I don't even understand the reasoning here: "why do you call Google having curation/censorship power fearsome, since tv networks already have curation/censorship power?". Obviously because curation/censorship power of a level and above (e.g. not your local high school paper) is troubling.
  - leppr 11y ago
    The reasoning is simple: Instead of seeing Google as rising as a new kind of ruler, enforcing a new kind of authority, I think it's more appropriate to see it as grafting itself onto an already existing authority. So to me it's not clear cut whether the centralizing power Google brings with its resources overweights the decentralizing power from dividing such authority into more parts. And as an aside it also seems foolish to worry about this when said political system itself guarantees that the majority of the population can't be properly represented unless they agree with each other, which is precisely the problem media control solves.
- gtf21 11y ago
  There's a behavioural difference here. If I don't see someone speak on a TV channel, then I don't assume they don't exist / aren't important. If I search for someone via Google / other search engine, and they don't come up, or their opponents come up far higher in the rankings than they do, then I imagine (without having done any proper studies on this) that it will influence my opinion of them more. I also don't buy the argument that Google having huge powers of, effectively, no-platforming is any less terrifying because TV channels have had it for a long time. This is just as bad!
coldtea 11y ago
That would be of concern (regarding elections), if the system wasn't a rigged, 2-party system for a century or so -- where there are strict conventions of who gets to be heard and who can run (including needing some millions of the campaign), with BS primaries, and party nominations and such.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Robadob 11y ago

Isn't this much the same as the apparent rumours of twitter suppressing conservative voices and hashtags? I've not looked into it in enough detail to decide whether its simply a conspiracy, but many popular internet services could be used to push political agendas.

mtgx 11y ago
Twitter likely did censor the #WhichHillary hashtag from two weeks ago. One of its executives was holding a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton a few days later.

hartpuff 11y ago

Even if Google was 100% unbiased politically, providing yet another major outlet for people who have no problem getting their message out already seems redundant, unless the point is just to reinforce existing power and influence. I don't expect them to promote any old blogger with an opinion (though I'd even prefer that to this), but giving a platform to marginal/dissident figures or organizations, from any part of the political spectrum, would at least serve some kind of interesting or useful purpose.

sgift 11y ago
> (...) giving a platform to alternative/marginal/dissident figures or organizations, from any part of the political spectrum, would at least have some point and be a lot more interesting. Sounds like a possible startup if there's a way to generate revenue from such a platform.

pappyo 11y ago

Does Google win by suppressing speech, even if those voices counter Google's ambitions? Google would do itself a disservice by cutting out people who rail against Google specifically or against what Google stands for generally. Google's bottom line is dependant on capturing all the data.

kuschku 11y ago
> capturing all the data. But not on displaying all the data. In fact, their whole business is to only show the data they believe you need right now. EDIT: Which makes it even easier to just "drop" controversial views that might challenge your opinion – the Filter Bubble effect is very real, and with every change that makes search more "relevant", it gets worse. EDIT2: If, additionally, a malicious entity – say, a government agency – would force Google to censor a topic, it would become a lot more problematic.

wslh 11y ago

> This seems a step beyond simply organising the world’s information. It is just the contrary since very few can post there. Then, if they prioritize these people/services on their search above others it turns the navigation path to a place owned by Google.

natch 11y ago

Clearly it's a direct assault on Twitter. This is no doubt the outcry they are hoping for, with the intent being to open it up fully to everyone qualified to be a Twitter user. The exclusivity is just to build hype and cachet for PR purposes.

mtgx 11y ago

Same thing with AMP "partnerships", which get shown at the top of a search with images and whatnot. Except those partnerships are mostly establishment corporate media. So just as we thought we'd escape from the brainwashing of corporate media from TV thanks to the Internet, I think Google, Facebook and Twitter even will play a big role on keeping the masses brainwashed by serving corporate media content to the majority of people, keeping them as brainwashed as ever.