3 ms·

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-immigrati

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.

3 ms·

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-immigrati

by scott_s 8y ago

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.