7 ms·

For all the conspiracy theorists and people crying "who will they go after next": All that's happening here is a non-profit is buying ads for common ISIS-relate

by dguido 10y ago

For all the conspiracy theorists and people crying "who will they go after next": All that's happening here is a non-profit is buying ads for common ISIS-related search terms and displaying anti-ISIS advertisements. You know, exactly like millions of people use Google ads for politics, selling things, etc. They're even getting external funding from donors to buy the ads. It astounds me that anyone could be against this. How are ads ok for selling your shitty SaaS product but they are not ok for convincing people not to murder one another?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ocdtrekkie 10y ago
To be clear, this is not the first nor will it be the last time Google's "Jigsaw" has gotten involved in politics. It's CEO, Jared Cohen, worked for Hillary Clinton at the State department, and once at Google, had emailed back and forth with her about Google helping encourage revolution in Syria. I don't want to see a Trump White House, but I am also sad that if Clinton wins, Google's influence in the White House will continue, or expand. Considering Google's width of influence and overall power, it should be looked at as an international threat, because we have no way of knowing what they'll use that power for next. Anti-brainwashing is great, until you realize it's not much different than straight-up brainwashing. Google is proud to admit it uses manipulative tactics to subconsciously trick it's own employees into eating healther. Again, laudable goal, questionable moral ethics. I actually had an extended argument with a Googler here on HN earlier this week about Google's apparent happiness to manipulate people's views to suit it's goals.
- makomk 10y ago
  Also, as with anything in politics, it's easy to justify truly horrific things using noble-sounding arguments. For example, who wouldn't want to protect civilians? No-one, which is why when Clinton's State Department and the UK government used it to justify catastrophic military intervention in Libya few questioned it. Yet according to recent committee report, the threat was questionable and the groups we supported dangerous: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/14/mps-deliver-damning-verdict-on-camerons-libya-intervention https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/14/mps-deliver-da... It wouldn't take much of a slide down the slippery slope at all for Google to back those groups, or their Syrian equivalent, in the name of stopping murder - or for them to discredit claims that the groups we're backing are killing civilians.
- finid 10y ago
  > I don't want to see a Trump White House, but I am also sad that if Clinton wins, Google's influence in the White House will continue, or expand. It doesn't matter who the next president will be. Google will still have it's role to play in the govt. Isn't their guy responsible for search part of a Pentagon? initiative or something?
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    Much of Google's partnership with the executive branch (of which the Pentagon is a part) is likely due to their close relationship with the Obama administration. Whether or not they'll be able to arrange the same deals with an opposing party's staff is anyone's guess. Money definitely talks to both parties though, and Google makes it rain in politics.
- cromwellian 10y ago
  Google doesn't hide the fact that it puts snacks that are bad for you in a ranked order and makes healthier snacks easier and more convenient to get to on lower shelves. They also label healthy stuff green ink, bad stuff red ink, and semi-ok stuff yellow. How is this any different than planners designing buildings to encourage exercise, or personal interactions? There's nothing immoral about this, and everyone is told about it, but we know people don't always read the labels, but actually sorting healthy to unhealthy by convenience, leverages the laziness of most people into eating healthy. If I have to bend over to the lowest shelf to eat a Snickers, but a banana or apple is right in front of me, maybe I'll eat that? There is nothing immoral or unethical about, and it publicly know. If you provide any range of snacks for employees, like any store or restaurant, you face a decision on how to order the food. Most restaurants and stores optimize their menus or shelves to hawk stuff that has the highest margin and least cost. If Google instead sorts their snacks according to say, popularity in the market, and puts all the Kit Kat or Snickers bars on the front shelf, then isn't that immoral? Lining the pockets of corporations that promote unhealthy disease causing foods, getting people addicted to sugar, and subconsciously steering them towards junk food? By "doing nothing" or "doing what was always done before" you are in fact, doing something knowingly bad that will harm health. I'd say it's even MORE unethical to 'default' to putting the snacks in order of demand or popularity. Google has also been trying to use data science internally to correct unconscious bias in promotions and interviews. Everyone is made aware of this, it's not a Milgram Experiment. Perhaps we should continue to let people rank resumes based on visible metadata like applicant name, even though we know it biases the reviewer -- even people who are progressive and even women are prone to this biasing effect. We could do nothing, or we could try to change the result -- and people will cry unethical, social engineering and manipulation. You've been doing anti-Google rants for years, almost a daily obsession, but it doesn't seem like you've toured their offices even once. Maybe you should take a look at how the cafes and microkitchens actually work.
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    I've toured Mountain View and spent some time at the San Francisco office, FWIW. I doubt anyone would let me in the door these days though. ;) The cafeteria in Google San Francisco started my obsession with dried apple chips. ...I ate all of the ones that cafeteria had. And bought more at a local convenience store after I left for the day. I may or may not have recently bought approximately twenty bags of apple chips at one time. The brand of apple chips sold in California is way better than the ones sold here.
- rixed 10y ago
  You describe white house influence at Google, then express concerns about Google influence. Looks like you are either willing to vilify Google or to launder the white House. What interests could possibly motivate Google in Syria ?
throw201609 10y ago
I must say that I agree both with you and the "conspiracy theorists". On the one hand, targeting ads at potential ISIS recruits is arguably benign compared to most advertising, as you say. On the other hand, the fact that a company such as Google potentially has such unprecedented influence on people's thoughts, at all (not necessarily in this specific case), is terrifying. I'm not entirely sure why Google's power appears so salient in this case, compared to the general case of online tracking and targeted ads, as well as control over search result ordering. I suspect it's because: a) supporting ISIS is a political position (if a crazy one), rather than just a product, so it makes it easier for people to extrapolate to influencing people with slightly more mainstream political opinions b) the article claims that the targeted ads are actually relatively effective in this case. I'm not implying that Google is currently abusing its power, and perhaps naively, I actually trust it to a non-zero extent, unlike, say Facebook, but there definitely is scope for abuse.
- witty_username 10y ago
  I get ads about converting to Islam and Christianity and I also got a few political ads. I don't see it as abuse. It's an ad. I'll think for myself whether I agree with its message or not. Whatever scope of "abuse" is possible with Google is also possible with any other form of media that has advertising.
throwup201609 10y ago
But we already know who they will go after next. From the article: > And this month, along with the London-based startup Moonshot Countering Violent Extremism and the US-based Gen Next Foundation, Jigsaw plans to relaunch the program in a second phase that will focus its method on North American extremists, applying the method to both potential ISIS recruits and violent white supremacists.
panarky 10y ago
Google's approach presumes that Islamic terrorism is driven by ignorant people. They will link to media from outside the viewer's filter bubble, so the ignorant Daesh recruit would become educated and choose another path. But is ignorance really the root cause? Researchers found that Islamist radicals are disproportionately well educated, and frequently have an engineering background. https://www.amazon.com/Engineers-Jihad-Connection-Extremism-Education/dp/0691145172/ https://www.amazon.com/Engineers-Jihad-Connection-Extremism-... Using rigorous methods and several new datasets, they explain the link between educational discipline and type of radicalism by looking at two key factors: the social mobility (or lack thereof) for engineers in the Muslim world, and a particular mindset seeking order and hierarchy that is found more frequently among engineers. Engineers' presence in some extremist groups and not others, the authors argue, is a proxy for individual traits that may account for the much larger question of selective recruitment to radical activism. If prospective terrorists are already well educated, will linking to alternative viewpoints tell them anything they didn't already know?
- nickff 10y ago
  To further your point, there are a number of studies that show how exposing political partisans to opposing viewpoints (and people on the other side) usually pushes them further into their own camp.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    Probably related: https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/ https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/
  - dsfyu404ed 10y ago
    On the other hand, if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes fact.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Uh, don't the people who buy shitty SaaS products also tend to be well-educated? Do poorly-educated people tend to have a strong need for A/B optimization tools?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
rhizome 10y ago
I think the difference is that it's illegal to advertise to promote a contrary view of a terror group. If you pay for ads to counter the anti-ISIS ads, that's material support for terrorism.
meira 10y ago
Looks like money laundring to me.

by dguido 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ocdtrekkie 10y ago

To be clear, this is not the first nor will it be the last time Google's "Jigsaw" has gotten involved in politics. It's CEO, Jared Cohen, worked for Hillary Clinton at the State department, and once at Google, had emailed back and forth with her about Google helping encourage revolution in Syria. I don't want to see a Trump White House, but I am also sad that if Clinton wins, Google's influence in the White House will continue, or expand. Considering Google's width of influence and overall power, it should be looked at as an international threat, because we have no way of knowing what they'll use that power for next. Anti-brainwashing is great, until you realize it's not much different than straight-up brainwashing. Google is proud to admit it uses manipulative tactics to subconsciously trick it's own employees into eating healther. Again, laudable goal, questionable moral ethics. I actually had an extended argument with a Googler here on HN earlier this week about Google's apparent happiness to manipulate people's views to suit it's goals.

makomk 10y ago
Also, as with anything in politics, it's easy to justify truly horrific things using noble-sounding arguments. For example, who wouldn't want to protect civilians? No-one, which is why when Clinton's State Department and the UK government used it to justify catastrophic military intervention in Libya few questioned it. Yet according to recent committee report, the threat was questionable and the groups we supported dangerous: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/14/mps-deliver-damning-verdict-on-camerons-libya-intervention https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/14/mps-deliver-da... It wouldn't take much of a slide down the slippery slope at all for Google to back those groups, or their Syrian equivalent, in the name of stopping murder - or for them to discredit claims that the groups we're backing are killing civilians.
finid 10y ago
> I don't want to see a Trump White House, but I am also sad that if Clinton wins, Google's influence in the White House will continue, or expand. It doesn't matter who the next president will be. Google will still have it's role to play in the govt. Isn't their guy responsible for search part of a Pentagon? initiative or something?
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  Much of Google's partnership with the executive branch (of which the Pentagon is a part) is likely due to their close relationship with the Obama administration. Whether or not they'll be able to arrange the same deals with an opposing party's staff is anyone's guess. Money definitely talks to both parties though, and Google makes it rain in politics.
cromwellian 10y ago
Google doesn't hide the fact that it puts snacks that are bad for you in a ranked order and makes healthier snacks easier and more convenient to get to on lower shelves. They also label healthy stuff green ink, bad stuff red ink, and semi-ok stuff yellow. How is this any different than planners designing buildings to encourage exercise, or personal interactions? There's nothing immoral about this, and everyone is told about it, but we know people don't always read the labels, but actually sorting healthy to unhealthy by convenience, leverages the laziness of most people into eating healthy. If I have to bend over to the lowest shelf to eat a Snickers, but a banana or apple is right in front of me, maybe I'll eat that? There is nothing immoral or unethical about, and it publicly know. If you provide any range of snacks for employees, like any store or restaurant, you face a decision on how to order the food. Most restaurants and stores optimize their menus or shelves to hawk stuff that has the highest margin and least cost. If Google instead sorts their snacks according to say, popularity in the market, and puts all the Kit Kat or Snickers bars on the front shelf, then isn't that immoral? Lining the pockets of corporations that promote unhealthy disease causing foods, getting people addicted to sugar, and subconsciously steering them towards junk food? By "doing nothing" or "doing what was always done before" you are in fact, doing something knowingly bad that will harm health. I'd say it's even MORE unethical to 'default' to putting the snacks in order of demand or popularity. Google has also been trying to use data science internally to correct unconscious bias in promotions and interviews. Everyone is made aware of this, it's not a Milgram Experiment. Perhaps we should continue to let people rank resumes based on visible metadata like applicant name, even though we know it biases the reviewer -- even people who are progressive and even women are prone to this biasing effect. We could do nothing, or we could try to change the result -- and people will cry unethical, social engineering and manipulation. You've been doing anti-Google rants for years, almost a daily obsession, but it doesn't seem like you've toured their offices even once. Maybe you should take a look at how the cafes and microkitchens actually work.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  I've toured Mountain View and spent some time at the San Francisco office, FWIW. I doubt anyone would let me in the door these days though. ;) The cafeteria in Google San Francisco started my obsession with dried apple chips. ...I ate all of the ones that cafeteria had. And bought more at a local convenience store after I left for the day. I may or may not have recently bought approximately twenty bags of apple chips at one time. The brand of apple chips sold in California is way better than the ones sold here.
rixed 10y ago
You describe white house influence at Google, then express concerns about Google influence. Looks like you are either willing to vilify Google or to launder the white House. What interests could possibly motivate Google in Syria ?

throw201609 10y ago

I must say that I agree both with you and the "conspiracy theorists". On the one hand, targeting ads at potential ISIS recruits is arguably benign compared to most advertising, as you say. On the other hand, the fact that a company such as Google potentially has such unprecedented influence on people's thoughts, at all (not necessarily in this specific case), is terrifying. I'm not entirely sure why Google's power appears so salient in this case, compared to the general case of online tracking and targeted ads, as well as control over search result ordering. I suspect it's because: a) supporting ISIS is a political position (if a crazy one), rather than just a product, so it makes it easier for people to extrapolate to influencing people with slightly more mainstream political opinions b) the article claims that the targeted ads are actually relatively effective in this case. I'm not implying that Google is currently abusing its power, and perhaps naively, I actually trust it to a non-zero extent, unlike, say Facebook, but there definitely is scope for abuse.

witty_username 10y ago
I get ads about converting to Islam and Christianity and I also got a few political ads. I don't see it as abuse. It's an ad. I'll think for myself whether I agree with its message or not. Whatever scope of "abuse" is possible with Google is also possible with any other form of media that has advertising.

throwup201609 10y ago

But we already know who they will go after next. From the article: > And this month, along with the London-based startup Moonshot Countering Violent Extremism and the US-based Gen Next Foundation, Jigsaw plans to relaunch the program in a second phase that will focus its method on North American extremists, applying the method to both potential ISIS recruits and violent white supremacists.

panarky 10y ago

Google's approach presumes that Islamic terrorism is driven by ignorant people. They will link to media from outside the viewer's filter bubble, so the ignorant Daesh recruit would become educated and choose another path. But is ignorance really the root cause? Researchers found that Islamist radicals are disproportionately well educated, and frequently have an engineering background. https://www.amazon.com/Engineers-Jihad-Connection-Extremism-Education/dp/0691145172/ https://www.amazon.com/Engineers-Jihad-Connection-Extremism-... Using rigorous methods and several new datasets, they explain the link between educational discipline and type of radicalism by looking at two key factors: the social mobility (or lack thereof) for engineers in the Muslim world, and a particular mindset seeking order and hierarchy that is found more frequently among engineers. Engineers' presence in some extremist groups and not others, the authors argue, is a proxy for individual traits that may account for the much larger question of selective recruitment to radical activism. If prospective terrorists are already well educated, will linking to alternative viewpoints tell them anything they didn't already know?

nickff 10y ago
To further your point, there are a number of studies that show how exposing political partisans to opposing viewpoints (and people on the other side) usually pushes them further into their own camp.
- rhizome 10y ago
  Probably related: https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/ https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  On the other hand, if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes fact.
tptacek 10y ago
Uh, don't the people who buy shitty SaaS products also tend to be well-educated? Do poorly-educated people tend to have a strong need for A/B optimization tools?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

rhizome 10y ago

I think the difference is that it's illegal to advertise to promote a contrary view of a terror group. If you pay for ads to counter the anti-ISIS ads, that's material support for terrorism.

meira 10y ago

Looks like money laundring to me.