10 ms·

Well, given the Snowden leaks and knowing the forced complacency with government surveillance, I think that people are just waking up to just how invasive techn

by jamra 9y ago

Well, given the Snowden leaks and knowing the forced complacency with government surveillance, I think that people are just waking up to just how invasive technology is in our lives. The direction we're moving towards seems to be one in which Amazon controls what you can buy by blocking out competing products. Google controlling what you can learn by censoring results based on politics. Facebook controls which news you read by allowing for purchased content. It may be related to the size of the company, but I think it's more related to the general conscientiousness of society as a whole and the awareness of how dangerous these companies are.

skj 9y ago
> Google controlling what you can learn by censoring results based on politics. Is there an example of this?
- random4369 9y ago
  China. Searching 'tiananmen square' or 'tank' man' won't show any traces of those events.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Are you sure? Google.cn still redirects to Google.com.hk for me, and Google.com.hk finds "tank man" just fine.
    - random4369 9y ago
      This is a comparatively recent change, to which China responded by temporarily blocking google. Earlier in their history, they did facilitate Chinese state censorship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China
      - icebraining 9y ago
        I don't excuse Google for having ceded to China's censorship. But that doesn't mean it isn't factually false to say "Searching 'tiananmen square' or 'tank' man' won't show any traces of those events" when that stopped happening almost a decade ago.
        random4369 9y ago
        Well, it has no effect on the factual validity of what I said because I didn't specify whether its past or present tense, nor did GP ask for an ongoing example. Nor does it have any effect on the argument here. Google did it in the recent past in China, they do the same thing in the US for politically undesirable content today, and Baidu continues doing it in China. The fact is that we live in an information age, and access to information is gated by the major players. This in turn literally determines what people can learn and what ideas are seen as socially acceptable or not. This amount of propaganda and censorship power is unprecedented. Google is currently censoring gun purchase related searches in the US, and there's no law requiring them to do it. That should make it quite clear that they have both the capacity and the desire to manipulate public opinion through censorship.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - namdnay 9y ago
    As opposed to all the other media in China that will show you those events? It's hardly "Google Censorship", it's Chinese law that Google follows. Just like DMCA takedown requests in the US.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
      - ataturk 9y ago
        Google would be more than pleased to apply Chinese-level censorship to all nations. They wouldn't even think twice about it. All our Internet traffic is being watched, all of it. Let that sink in. All our phone calls, too. ALL. Now, these companies are stacking the deck against contrarian voices. Just going to shut anyone up who dares speak against the party line, I guess. Call them 'Russian bots' and dismiss them as irrelevant. You all rail against fascism, but I ask you: What is it called when government and private industry conspire to destroy individual freedom?
    - noxToken 9y ago
      I just thought of something in regards to following local law. This is mostly rhetoric. There are people in support of companies fighting and breaking current law if they feel that a certain law does not serve the people. We have censorship in this case. Google is massive company with a ubiquitous name synonymous for web search. What if Google complies with local law without pushback, because they understand that a lot of people would be lost without their service. Hear me out: Most every user here and probably most people 40 or younger from developed nations understands that Google is a company name. However, I claim (no citation) that a non-trivial portion of the world population thinks that the only place to do a web search is Google's website/search bar. I further claim that a non-trivial amount of people do not know that they could navigate a browser to Wikipedia by going to wikipedia.org rather than by typing wikipedia in the bar, loading search results, and clicking the direct link. Ergo Google being shut down in country would mean that a non-trivial portion of that country's population would think that there is no way to search the web for information. It would also mean that a segment of that userbase would also think that the entirety of the Internet is broken.
  - jmull 9y ago
    I just "Tiananmen square" on Google and its almost all about the massacre of 1989. The picture of the tank rolling toward the man is at the top on the right. I guess you mean searching for "Tiananmen square" in China It seems to me it's the Chinese government censoring this, not Google. Google has a role, of course, but it's that it isn't able to stand up to the Chinese Government. (Breaking it up, whatever that means, surely wouldn't improve its leverage over the Chinese government. Just pointing out, your angst on this score is misdirected. Change in China will not and cannot come from foreign companies operating there.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - apatters 9y ago
      > Change in China will not and cannot come from foreign companies operating there. It can and it must. These companies can and should lobby their governments to place tariffs and restrictions on Chinese companies and their products/services, unless the Chinese become a more open society. An uncensored Google in China would encourage democratic reforms. Democratic reforms would bring Chinese labor rights closer to a Western standard, eroding a principal reason Western firms outsource to China. This rising tide would lift all boats except for the Communist Party's. History is filled with examples of countries which became more free and then grew through openness and trade. These countries became new markets for companies like Google and many others. What we lack today is leaders with the vision and courage to follow this path, both in politics and business.
      - random4369 9y ago
        I'm not convinced an uncensored Google would encourage democratic reforms. Google US is comparatively much more 'open' but democratic process is also failing there due to other pressures.
- wskinner 9y ago
  One recent example in the USA: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ywq4gm/google-gun-shopping-search https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ywq4gm/google-gun...
- jazzyk 9y ago
  Just two, off the top of my head, but there are more: 1. Recently reported white-out on "gun purchase" related searches. Gun laws (and enforcement) certainly need to be improved, but Google is not the elected body to decide what is good and bad for the society. 2. Banning (or preventing from making money) conservative channels/pundits on YouTube. It does not matter if some of them are lunatics, they are no better or worse than someone pushing "herbal remedies" or some such.
  - vkou 9y ago
    1. Whatever your opinion on gun laws is, no marketplace should be forced to allow listing guns - or any other category of products - on it. Shopping is more a marketplace then search is. 2. What happens when the channels in question violate the ToS (Sandy Hook conspiracies often fall into this category)? Should no action be taken because they have a political slant? You can certainly make an argument that internet platforms should be less like Facebook and YouTube and more like 4chan's /b board, but you need to at least acknowledge that there are tradeoffs with having a ToS that tolerates everything legal.
    - jazzyk 9y ago
      Imagine a few years ago, if Snowden had said on YouTube that there was a backdoor in every electronic device in the USA, he would surely have been banned as a lunatic spreading false propaganda against the US intelligence service.
    - jamra 9y ago
      I really like this comment, so I gave you an upvote. I also struggle with this notion, but there was a famous case in the 70's of a Jewish lawyer defending Nazis' right to march. https://www.jta.org/2013/06/20/news-opinion/the-telegraph/nazis-marching-through-skokie https://www.jta.org/2013/06/20/news-opinion/the-telegraph/na... In an interview I saw with the lawyer, I remember him struggling with the morality of it, but his explanation was pretty amazing. He said something along the lines of: If you allow the encroachment of liberty in the name of silencing Nazis, one day soon, the Nazis will be using that same power against you. The lawyer's own family didn't understand his dedication to free speech. I personally found his reasoning to make sense. If you allow Google to sensor gun search results, one day, after a change in who's in power there, they may be censoring something that can harm society as a whole.
- googlenoter2 9y ago
  The Google search algorithm is highly proprietary and varies greatly per filter bubble, so it's difficult for anyone to prove that they're changing anything. But there is plenty of smoke here. The recent censoring of any shopping results with "gun" in the name, with amusing results [1], shows that they will change search algorithms in response to political pressure. There have also been accusations of censoring socialist websites [2], tweaking autocomplete to favor Clinton over Trump in the election [3], and down-ranking pro-life groups [4]. What's most insidious is nobody knows for sure what they're doing. Is it an accident? Deliberate? Just getting "fake news" [5, 6] or "hate speech" [7, 8] out of search results? These accusations don't even cover continual controversies over bias in YouTube demonetization. Many of these are mere accusations, but nobody has any idea what's going on. Just a little tweak here and there can radically alter traffic patterns, search results, and knowledge discovery. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/google-shopping-bans-gun-searches-water-guns-guns-n-roses-2018-2 http://www.businessinsider.com/google-shopping-bans-gun-sear... [2] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/07/27/goog-j27.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/07/27/goog-j27.html [3] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-google-suggestions-accused-favoring-candidate-election-2016/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-google-suggesti... [4] https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2017/july/is-google-censoring-a-pro-life-website-through-search-engine-manipulation https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2017/july/is-google-censorin... [5] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/26/technology/google-search-bias-claims.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/26/technology/google-search-... [6] http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/09/googles-new-fact-check-feature-almost-exclusively-targets-conservative-sites/ http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/09/googles-new-fact-check-fea... [7] https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/google-changes-search-results-to-conceal-criticism-of-islam-and-jihad https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/google-changes-search-r... [8] https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2017/0223/Can-Google-AI-spot-and-stop-hate-speech-online https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2017/0223/Can-Google-AI...
- kiliantics 9y ago
  https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-internet-flips-elections-and-alters-our-thoughts https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-internet-flips-elections-and-... Great piece on the connection between Google and the Democratic party and investigations into search result manipulation
Pigo 9y ago
I can definitely see how Amazon is controlling their marketplace, and even now opening brick & mortar stores now that they closed down everyone else's. But I don't get anything from Facebook except finding out what my grandma thinks about a picture of my son. I see YouTube trying to push channels they want me to watch, but I just dismiss them.
- jamra 9y ago
  I was reading recently about how supposedly some people were able to buy advertising space and push "fake news". This goes for both right and left wing propaganda. Factually inaccurate news being sent to their respective quires thus further polarizing people's opinions.
- skellera 9y ago
  Some people get all their news from Facebook. I personally wouldn’t trust news on there but a large number of people believe all the stuff their friends are posting and the biased news they see.
  - Pigo 9y ago
    Do you mean large, as in a large percentage of the whole population? Or a tiny fraction of the population, but which still makes up a large number of people because there are so many? It's hard to believe it's a large percentage of us are really that weak-minded.
    - baq 9y ago
      i think at least 1% of people get their news only from FB. 1% is millions. is that large or small?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
wbl 9y ago
The competition is a click away.
Stranger43 9y ago
But are the valley companies worse then the old gatekeepers of information who is pretty much the ones currently leading the charge against the internet giants. It's really easy to pick what look like a powerfull target and accuse them of doing what you want in order to gain the exact same power, in fact just about every totalitarian state seams to have used that propaganda tacics. It's much harder to come up with a coherent strategy to actually improve the situation to the point where no gatekeepers exist and people have real genuine material freedom rather then just immaterial freedom of a mostly fictional nature
- TAForObvReasons 9y ago
  > are the valley companies worse then the old gatekeepers of information Yes, primarily because the regulations regarding media, news, and other traditional entities haven't been applied to tech companies. That is slowly changing as the law is starting to catch up. It took more than a decade to states to finally start taxing internet purchases across state lines (closing the "nexus loophole"). It will likely take years before we see meaningful regulation affecting google / amazon / fb
  - Stranger43 9y ago
    But is/was it a good thing for the traditional elites with it's track record of war, suffering and oppression to be allowed back as paymaster to the gatekeepers? I.E. is the glorious past people look to by default when criticizing the Internet giants actually an society we want to return to, especially if we imagine ourselves as a citizens of somewhere who is not a de-facto colonial power. I.E. what kind of regulation do you actually want and how much power are we willing to centralize inside the increasingly untrustworthy system of revolving doors that most governments seams to have been devolving into since the last war to end all wars ended.
- lamename 9y ago
  I think they are somewhat worse since they have the ability to make their influence better targeted to the individual, rather than just common groups of people, as the old gatekeepers could

by jamra 9y ago

skj 9y ago

> Google controlling what you can learn by censoring results based on politics. Is there an example of this?

random4369 9y ago
China. Searching 'tiananmen square' or 'tank' man' won't show any traces of those events.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Are you sure? Google.cn still redirects to Google.com.hk for me, and Google.com.hk finds "tank man" just fine.
  - random4369 9y ago
    This is a comparatively recent change, to which China responded by temporarily blocking google. Earlier in their history, they did facilitate Chinese state censorship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China
    - icebraining 9y ago
      I don't excuse Google for having ceded to China's censorship. But that doesn't mean it isn't factually false to say "Searching 'tiananmen square' or 'tank' man' won't show any traces of those events" when that stopped happening almost a decade ago.
      - random4369 9y ago
        Well, it has no effect on the factual validity of what I said because I didn't specify whether its past or present tense, nor did GP ask for an ongoing example. Nor does it have any effect on the argument here. Google did it in the recent past in China, they do the same thing in the US for politically undesirable content today, and Baidu continues doing it in China. The fact is that we live in an information age, and access to information is gated by the major players. This in turn literally determines what people can learn and what ideas are seen as socially acceptable or not. This amount of propaganda and censorship power is unprecedented. Google is currently censoring gun purchase related searches in the US, and there's no law requiring them to do it. That should make it quite clear that they have both the capacity and the desire to manipulate public opinion through censorship.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
- namdnay 9y ago
  As opposed to all the other media in China that will show you those events? It's hardly "Google Censorship", it's Chinese law that Google follows. Just like DMCA takedown requests in the US.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
    - ataturk 9y ago
      Google would be more than pleased to apply Chinese-level censorship to all nations. They wouldn't even think twice about it. All our Internet traffic is being watched, all of it. Let that sink in. All our phone calls, too. ALL. Now, these companies are stacking the deck against contrarian voices. Just going to shut anyone up who dares speak against the party line, I guess. Call them 'Russian bots' and dismiss them as irrelevant. You all rail against fascism, but I ask you: What is it called when government and private industry conspire to destroy individual freedom?
  - noxToken 9y ago
    I just thought of something in regards to following local law. This is mostly rhetoric. There are people in support of companies fighting and breaking current law if they feel that a certain law does not serve the people. We have censorship in this case. Google is massive company with a ubiquitous name synonymous for web search. What if Google complies with local law without pushback, because they understand that a lot of people would be lost without their service. Hear me out: Most every user here and probably most people 40 or younger from developed nations understands that Google is a company name. However, I claim (no citation) that a non-trivial portion of the world population thinks that the only place to do a web search is Google's website/search bar. I further claim that a non-trivial amount of people do not know that they could navigate a browser to Wikipedia by going to wikipedia.org rather than by typing wikipedia in the bar, loading search results, and clicking the direct link. Ergo Google being shut down in country would mean that a non-trivial portion of that country's population would think that there is no way to search the web for information. It would also mean that a segment of that userbase would also think that the entirety of the Internet is broken.
- jmull 9y ago
  I just "Tiananmen square" on Google and its almost all about the massacre of 1989. The picture of the tank rolling toward the man is at the top on the right. I guess you mean searching for "Tiananmen square" in China It seems to me it's the Chinese government censoring this, not Google. Google has a role, of course, but it's that it isn't able to stand up to the Chinese Government. (Breaking it up, whatever that means, surely wouldn't improve its leverage over the Chinese government. Just pointing out, your angst on this score is misdirected. Change in China will not and cannot come from foreign companies operating there.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - apatters 9y ago
    > Change in China will not and cannot come from foreign companies operating there. It can and it must. These companies can and should lobby their governments to place tariffs and restrictions on Chinese companies and their products/services, unless the Chinese become a more open society. An uncensored Google in China would encourage democratic reforms. Democratic reforms would bring Chinese labor rights closer to a Western standard, eroding a principal reason Western firms outsource to China. This rising tide would lift all boats except for the Communist Party's. History is filled with examples of countries which became more free and then grew through openness and trade. These countries became new markets for companies like Google and many others. What we lack today is leaders with the vision and courage to follow this path, both in politics and business.
    - random4369 9y ago
      I'm not convinced an uncensored Google would encourage democratic reforms. Google US is comparatively much more 'open' but democratic process is also failing there due to other pressures.
wskinner 9y ago
One recent example in the USA: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ywq4gm/google-gun-shopping-search https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ywq4gm/google-gun...
jazzyk 9y ago
Just two, off the top of my head, but there are more: 1. Recently reported white-out on "gun purchase" related searches. Gun laws (and enforcement) certainly need to be improved, but Google is not the elected body to decide what is good and bad for the society. 2. Banning (or preventing from making money) conservative channels/pundits on YouTube. It does not matter if some of them are lunatics, they are no better or worse than someone pushing "herbal remedies" or some such.
- vkou 9y ago
  1. Whatever your opinion on gun laws is, no marketplace should be forced to allow listing guns - or any other category of products - on it. Shopping is more a marketplace then search is. 2. What happens when the channels in question violate the ToS (Sandy Hook conspiracies often fall into this category)? Should no action be taken because they have a political slant? You can certainly make an argument that internet platforms should be less like Facebook and YouTube and more like 4chan's /b board, but you need to at least acknowledge that there are tradeoffs with having a ToS that tolerates everything legal.
  - jazzyk 9y ago
    Imagine a few years ago, if Snowden had said on YouTube that there was a backdoor in every electronic device in the USA, he would surely have been banned as a lunatic spreading false propaganda against the US intelligence service.
  - jamra 9y ago
    I really like this comment, so I gave you an upvote. I also struggle with this notion, but there was a famous case in the 70's of a Jewish lawyer defending Nazis' right to march. https://www.jta.org/2013/06/20/news-opinion/the-telegraph/nazis-marching-through-skokie https://www.jta.org/2013/06/20/news-opinion/the-telegraph/na... In an interview I saw with the lawyer, I remember him struggling with the morality of it, but his explanation was pretty amazing. He said something along the lines of: If you allow the encroachment of liberty in the name of silencing Nazis, one day soon, the Nazis will be using that same power against you. The lawyer's own family didn't understand his dedication to free speech. I personally found his reasoning to make sense. If you allow Google to sensor gun search results, one day, after a change in who's in power there, they may be censoring something that can harm society as a whole.
googlenoter2 9y ago
The Google search algorithm is highly proprietary and varies greatly per filter bubble, so it's difficult for anyone to prove that they're changing anything. But there is plenty of smoke here. The recent censoring of any shopping results with "gun" in the name, with amusing results [1], shows that they will change search algorithms in response to political pressure. There have also been accusations of censoring socialist websites [2], tweaking autocomplete to favor Clinton over Trump in the election [3], and down-ranking pro-life groups [4]. What's most insidious is nobody knows for sure what they're doing. Is it an accident? Deliberate? Just getting "fake news" [5, 6] or "hate speech" [7, 8] out of search results? These accusations don't even cover continual controversies over bias in YouTube demonetization. Many of these are mere accusations, but nobody has any idea what's going on. Just a little tweak here and there can radically alter traffic patterns, search results, and knowledge discovery. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/google-shopping-bans-gun-searches-water-guns-guns-n-roses-2018-2 http://www.businessinsider.com/google-shopping-bans-gun-sear... [2] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/07/27/goog-j27.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/07/27/goog-j27.html [3] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-google-suggestions-accused-favoring-candidate-election-2016/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-google-suggesti... [4] https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2017/july/is-google-censoring-a-pro-life-website-through-search-engine-manipulation https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2017/july/is-google-censorin... [5] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/26/technology/google-search-bias-claims.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/26/technology/google-search-... [6] http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/09/googles-new-fact-check-feature-almost-exclusively-targets-conservative-sites/ http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/09/googles-new-fact-check-fea... [7] https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/google-changes-search-results-to-conceal-criticism-of-islam-and-jihad https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/google-changes-search-r... [8] https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2017/0223/Can-Google-AI-spot-and-stop-hate-speech-online https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2017/0223/Can-Google-AI...
kiliantics 9y ago
https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-internet-flips-elections-and-alters-our-thoughts https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-internet-flips-elections-and-... Great piece on the connection between Google and the Democratic party and investigations into search result manipulation

Pigo 9y ago

I can definitely see how Amazon is controlling their marketplace, and even now opening brick & mortar stores now that they closed down everyone else's. But I don't get anything from Facebook except finding out what my grandma thinks about a picture of my son. I see YouTube trying to push channels they want me to watch, but I just dismiss them.

jamra 9y ago
I was reading recently about how supposedly some people were able to buy advertising space and push "fake news". This goes for both right and left wing propaganda. Factually inaccurate news being sent to their respective quires thus further polarizing people's opinions.
skellera 9y ago
Some people get all their news from Facebook. I personally wouldn’t trust news on there but a large number of people believe all the stuff their friends are posting and the biased news they see.
- Pigo 9y ago
  Do you mean large, as in a large percentage of the whole population? Or a tiny fraction of the population, but which still makes up a large number of people because there are so many? It's hard to believe it's a large percentage of us are really that weak-minded.
  - baq 9y ago
    i think at least 1% of people get their news only from FB. 1% is millions. is that large or small?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

wbl 9y ago

The competition is a click away.

Stranger43 9y ago

But are the valley companies worse then the old gatekeepers of information who is pretty much the ones currently leading the charge against the internet giants. It's really easy to pick what look like a powerfull target and accuse them of doing what you want in order to gain the exact same power, in fact just about every totalitarian state seams to have used that propaganda tacics. It's much harder to come up with a coherent strategy to actually improve the situation to the point where no gatekeepers exist and people have real genuine material freedom rather then just immaterial freedom of a mostly fictional nature

TAForObvReasons 9y ago
> are the valley companies worse then the old gatekeepers of information Yes, primarily because the regulations regarding media, news, and other traditional entities haven't been applied to tech companies. That is slowly changing as the law is starting to catch up. It took more than a decade to states to finally start taxing internet purchases across state lines (closing the "nexus loophole"). It will likely take years before we see meaningful regulation affecting google / amazon / fb
- Stranger43 9y ago
  But is/was it a good thing for the traditional elites with it's track record of war, suffering and oppression to be allowed back as paymaster to the gatekeepers? I.E. is the glorious past people look to by default when criticizing the Internet giants actually an society we want to return to, especially if we imagine ourselves as a citizens of somewhere who is not a de-facto colonial power. I.E. what kind of regulation do you actually want and how much power are we willing to centralize inside the increasingly untrustworthy system of revolving doors that most governments seams to have been devolving into since the last war to end all wars ended.
lamename 9y ago
I think they are somewhat worse since they have the ability to make their influence better targeted to the individual, rather than just common groups of people, as the old gatekeepers could