4 ms·

Where did Google leadership call to subvert democracy? At no point in the video do they instruct or encourage employees to do that. They're discussing what Trum

Where did Google leadership call to subvert democracy? At no point in the video do they instruct or encourage employees to do that. They're discussing what Trump means for their employees, not for their customers

yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
I said Google staff had, and I didn't say they did that in this video. But then to be fair, I don't have any hard evidence for this. EDIT: As it turns out, sources for this are pretty easy to come across online: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-travelban/google-staff-discussed-tweaking-search-results-to-counter-travel-ban-wsj-idUSKCN1M103O https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-travelban/google-s...
- scott_s 8y ago
  This is the main claim: "Google employees discussed how they could tweak the company's search-related functions to show users how to contribute to pro-immigration organizations and contact lawmakers and government agencies, the WSJ said. The ideas were not implemented." To me, that is not "subverting democracy." It is, however, taking an active political stance.
  - yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
    I respectfully and strongly disagree. A functioning democracy is fundamentally predicated on a well-informed electorate. If the primary source of information is manipulated in the name of political activism, how can they become well-informed? Sadly I must qualify this by saying I don't believe the general public in the West are well-informed, but that doesn't mean that ideal should be given up entirely.
    - FireBeyond 8y ago
      From the parent: > show users how to contribute to pro-immigration organizations and contact lawmakers and government agencies From you: > fundamentally predicated on a well-informed electorate Describe how anything in the parent statement fails to contribute to, or detracts from, a well-informed electorate. Both examples are involvement in the functioning of a democracy, not detracting from it. Nor is any private party obligated to provide "equal coverage". That the level of "informed" goes up, but does not encapsulate information -you- think should be included, does not negate this.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > the WSJ said The WSJ is unabashedly an outlet for conservative and GOP talking points. That is clear on its opinion page, and I know that somehow people trust its news pages, but the same editors control the rest of the publication, as does the owner of the WSJ and Fox News, Rupert Murdoch. I wouldn't trust their summary of something relating to a conservative talking point.
- jasonlotito 8y ago
  Your source doens't back your claim of: "Their staff have openly called to subvert democracy," The key here being "openly" and a specific call to "subvert democracy". None of this happened, and your source does not back up this claim in any way. These are apparently in internal only threads, and they were merely talking about tweaking search results. Internal, private emails threads are objectively not "openly calling" for something and merely "tweaking search results" is not "subverting democracy" in any sane world. You are spreading misinformation at best.

yakshaving_jgt 8y ago

I said Google staff had, and I didn't say they did that in this video. But then to be fair, I don't have any hard evidence for this. EDIT: As it turns out, sources for this are pretty easy to come across online: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-travelban/google-staff-discussed-tweaking-search-results-to-counter-travel-ban-wsj-idUSKCN1M103O https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-travelban/google-s...

scott_s 8y ago
This is the main claim: "Google employees discussed how they could tweak the company's search-related functions to show users how to contribute to pro-immigration organizations and contact lawmakers and government agencies, the WSJ said. The ideas were not implemented." To me, that is not "subverting democracy." It is, however, taking an active political stance.
- yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
  I respectfully and strongly disagree. A functioning democracy is fundamentally predicated on a well-informed electorate. If the primary source of information is manipulated in the name of political activism, how can they become well-informed? Sadly I must qualify this by saying I don't believe the general public in the West are well-informed, but that doesn't mean that ideal should be given up entirely.
  - FireBeyond 8y ago
    From the parent: > show users how to contribute to pro-immigration organizations and contact lawmakers and government agencies From you: > fundamentally predicated on a well-informed electorate Describe how anything in the parent statement fails to contribute to, or detracts from, a well-informed electorate. Both examples are involvement in the functioning of a democracy, not detracting from it. Nor is any private party obligated to provide "equal coverage". That the level of "informed" goes up, but does not encapsulate information -you- think should be included, does not negate this.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > the WSJ said The WSJ is unabashedly an outlet for conservative and GOP talking points. That is clear on its opinion page, and I know that somehow people trust its news pages, but the same editors control the rest of the publication, as does the owner of the WSJ and Fox News, Rupert Murdoch. I wouldn't trust their summary of something relating to a conservative talking point.
jasonlotito 8y ago
Your source doens't back your claim of: "Their staff have openly called to subvert democracy," The key here being "openly" and a specific call to "subvert democracy". None of this happened, and your source does not back up this claim in any way. These are apparently in internal only threads, and they were merely talking about tweaking search results. Internal, private emails threads are objectively not "openly calling" for something and merely "tweaking search results" is not "subverting democracy" in any sane world. You are spreading misinformation at best.