5 ms·

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 n

by 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.
  - vkou 9y ago
    This response misses the point. Shopping is not search, and refusing to carry an item in your marketplace is not repression of free speech. Consider that Shopping does not carry something else controversial - pornography. Yet, you don't see conservatives get up in arms, demanding that Google start listing it on shopping. Odd, that. Google is not interested in making money from selling pornography. That's a decision it has made. They could also make a decision to only make money from selling Kosher food, and you'd have no leg to stand on when criticising that. A marketplace is not a town square. If a marketplace does not want to sell your product, it doesn't matter if the disagreement is political or economic. It's not censorship. Just because someone can sell guns in America does not mean you are compelled to help them. Just because you can participate in Nazi speech in America does not mean that it's a big controversy that Norderstrom or Goodwill refuses to carry Hitler Youth hoodies. Freedom of speech requires freedom from compelled speech.
    - jazzyk 9y ago
      Seems like you are mixing up two things: 1. search results 2. sponsored ads/links and Google shopping marketplace, which appear separately. If Google chooses to not accept money from selling X, there will not be X items appearing in the sponsored links (2) section. But the search itself (1) has always been intended to return the most relevant information, based on the key words. Without any moral/political judgement, as long as it is legal.
      - vkou 9y ago
        I'm not mixing those things up. People talking about Google search censorship are failing to note that: 1. Searching for guns and gun accessories in Google Search has, and continues to return relevant gun-related search results. 2. Searching for guns and gun accessories in Google Shopping[1] has had its search results reduced, hence the controversy. [1] Notice how all of the screencaps[2] posted on Zero Hedge/etc, are of people having the Shopping search tab open. [2] https://twitter.com/xavierdreyman/status/968272365741330433 https://twitter.com/xavierdreyman/status/968272365741330433
eksemplar 9y ago
Google is a private company though, their platforms aren’t basic utilities owned by the collective. As such google is free to use their platforms as they see fit. Nobody had an inherent right to be heard on somebody else’s platform.
- zaarn 9y ago
  Google's reach as a platform is sufficiently large that it has to be held to certain standards that smaller platforms wouldn't. Same goes for Facebook.
- jwalton 9y ago
  You're correct, but you've missed the point. Google is the only search provider (or at least, the only one anyone uses), and so they have the power to decide what you are allowed and not allowed to discover. You're right that Google should not be forced to allow content they don't want to promote into their search results - and I don't think the article or anyone in this comment thread has argued that they should. But that's not the problem. The problem is that Google has this monopoly in the first place. Big monopolies and oligarchies are anathema to both democracy and to a free market.
- Brendinooo 9y ago
  I'm interested in discussing this point a bit more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama could possibly set a precedent against your argument, right? If someone could sufficiently prove that Google's platform is big enough to cause meaningful harm to those who are censored off of it, Google could be treated differently than an average website.
  - eksemplar 9y ago
    Well, I’d argue that google needs to be reigned in, but I’m European and we like regulations. That being said, I doubt you’ll find anyone willing to enact laws that force companies to allow Neo Nazis to spread their message.

by jazzyk 9y ago

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.
- vkou 9y ago
  This response misses the point. Shopping is not search, and refusing to carry an item in your marketplace is not repression of free speech. Consider that Shopping does not carry something else controversial - pornography. Yet, you don't see conservatives get up in arms, demanding that Google start listing it on shopping. Odd, that. Google is not interested in making money from selling pornography. That's a decision it has made. They could also make a decision to only make money from selling Kosher food, and you'd have no leg to stand on when criticising that. A marketplace is not a town square. If a marketplace does not want to sell your product, it doesn't matter if the disagreement is political or economic. It's not censorship. Just because someone can sell guns in America does not mean you are compelled to help them. Just because you can participate in Nazi speech in America does not mean that it's a big controversy that Norderstrom or Goodwill refuses to carry Hitler Youth hoodies. Freedom of speech requires freedom from compelled speech.
  - jazzyk 9y ago
    Seems like you are mixing up two things: 1. search results 2. sponsored ads/links and Google shopping marketplace, which appear separately. If Google chooses to not accept money from selling X, there will not be X items appearing in the sponsored links (2) section. But the search itself (1) has always been intended to return the most relevant information, based on the key words. Without any moral/political judgement, as long as it is legal.
    - vkou 9y ago
      I'm not mixing those things up. People talking about Google search censorship are failing to note that: 1. Searching for guns and gun accessories in Google Search has, and continues to return relevant gun-related search results. 2. Searching for guns and gun accessories in Google Shopping[1] has had its search results reduced, hence the controversy. [1] Notice how all of the screencaps[2] posted on Zero Hedge/etc, are of people having the Shopping search tab open. [2] https://twitter.com/xavierdreyman/status/968272365741330433 https://twitter.com/xavierdreyman/status/968272365741330433

eksemplar 9y ago

Google is a private company though, their platforms aren’t basic utilities owned by the collective. As such google is free to use their platforms as they see fit. Nobody had an inherent right to be heard on somebody else’s platform.

zaarn 9y ago
Google's reach as a platform is sufficiently large that it has to be held to certain standards that smaller platforms wouldn't. Same goes for Facebook.
jwalton 9y ago
You're correct, but you've missed the point. Google is the only search provider (or at least, the only one anyone uses), and so they have the power to decide what you are allowed and not allowed to discover. You're right that Google should not be forced to allow content they don't want to promote into their search results - and I don't think the article or anyone in this comment thread has argued that they should. But that's not the problem. The problem is that Google has this monopoly in the first place. Big monopolies and oligarchies are anathema to both democracy and to a free market.
Brendinooo 9y ago
I'm interested in discussing this point a bit more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama could possibly set a precedent against your argument, right? If someone could sufficiently prove that Google's platform is big enough to cause meaningful harm to those who are censored off of it, Google could be treated differently than an average website.
- eksemplar 9y ago
  Well, I’d argue that google needs to be reigned in, but I’m European and we like regulations. That being said, I doubt you’ll find anyone willing to enact laws that force companies to allow Neo Nazis to spread their message.