19 ms·

Google CEO Sundar Pichai to Meet with Top GOP Lawmakers

111 points by tareqak 8y ago

polskibus 8y ago
Why a private meeting? Surely it's transparency Google needs to regain public trust?
- davidw 8y ago
  The GOP lawmakers aren't interested in public trust, but in gaining leverage - that would be my thought, at least.
  - anoncoward111 8y ago
    This is correct. Yesterday I was downvoted for defending Alex Jones' right to free speech, and today I will be downvoted for defending Google from overzealous Republicans. shrugs
    - anoncoward2e20 8y ago
      Yes. For those who want a good read on history, check this out "Divided We Stand". (author is an establishment, mainstream historian of Congress.) https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/50/divided-we-stand/ https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/50/divided-we-stand/
    - geodel 8y ago
      Just downvoted? Not provided strange arguments like "Right to free speech is not right free reach" or Google/FB/Apple/Twitter are private companies and do not owe anything to whom they don't like?
      - User23 8y ago
        I know you’re kidding and this is funny, because corporations couldn’t even exist without the state passing statutes allowing incorporation.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      Those two situations are completely and utterly different. Apples and lug wrenches, as it were.
    - nova22033 8y ago
      >shrugs reads the constitution. Fails to find the part where you have a right NOT to be downvoted. shrugs
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    The GOP lawmakers aren't interested in public trust, but in gaining leverage This isn't a GOP or DNC thing. All of Congress is peeved as Google's apparent contempt for how the nation works: https://www.cnet.com/news/google-is-a-no-show-at-the-washington-dc-tech-hearings-stoking-anger-in-congress/ https://www.cnet.com/news/google-is-a-no-show-at-the-washing... IME, the lawmakers agreed to go "private" with the meeting in order to get Google to even talk to them.
    - davidw 8y ago
      There are legit problems with Google and FB and so on, but I don't trust the current congress to come up with sensible ideas. Not one bit.
    - bduerst 8y ago
      If Congress is peeved, then they shouldn't have rejected the VP: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/404268-senate-intel-invites-alphabet-ceo-to-testify-rejecting-company-offer-of-vp https://thehill.com/policy/technology/404268-senate-intel-in...
  - anoncoward2e20 8y ago
    History of this. Good read: "Divided We Stand". (author is an establishment, mainstream historian of Congress.) https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/50/divided-we-stand/ https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/50/divided-we-stand/
- antsar 8y ago
  Is "public trust" actually a problem for Google? In my experience, most people just don't care.
  - asdkhadsj 8y ago
    Very meaningful question. Echo chambers tend to think their influence is far greater than it is. Much of HN may be growing resentment, but that's far from reflective on the population as a whole. Even if it's considered the beginning of a trend, the question of what does the public actually think - do they actually care still stands. edit: I a word.
- neonate 8y ago
  FTA: "and again at a public hearing this year".
  - polskibus 8y ago
    Having a private meeting before that looks like they wanted to establish a secret deal first and do the PR later. I'm not saying that's what Google wants to do, just that it's bad PR imho.
- natch 8y ago
  The GOP is not big on transparency and accountability so it's no surprise.
- oh-kumudo 8y ago
  Even US government doesn't have public trust right now. I don't think Americans trust anyone/anything under current political climate.
spbaar 8y ago
He better have the chuptzpah to come out of the meeting telling the truth that Google results do not have an ideological bias and consider his civic duty complete after showing lawmakers evidence of such. We've seen what happens at Facebook when they try to make sure the range of opinions published is "neutral". I've seen people complain that the little 'i' symbol next to news stories on Facebook that details the viewpoint and credibility of the linked site is discriminatory. There will always be a constituency for people who love to play victims to social media companies. That should not affect their decisions.
- colordrops 8y ago
  Google search results and news absolutely have a bias. These services aren't made in a vacuum. They are made and tuned by people with biases. Technology doesn't have some special ability to sort out ground truth from human bias. It just reflects our biases. As mentioned elsewhere in the comments, the question shouldn't be whether google is biased or not, but whether the government should be getting involved at all.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    You'd be extremely hard pressed to prove that it's an anti-right wing bias, though.
    - jerf 8y ago
      It's pretty easy. Hacker News seems to think Google seems pretty fair, since we're all "everything is biased and the filter bubble is inescapable, oh, wait, are we talking about Google? Things are great and the government is persecuting them." Hacker News is on the left side of the US as a whole and extremely hostile to Republicans in general and Trump specifically. If HN thinks Google is fair, that's nearly ipso facto proof it's quite substantially biased. Silicon Valley's lack of ideological diversity is a big problem for them. I don't mean from the point of view of being right or wrong in that ideology, I mean from the point of view of looking out at the rest of the world and modeling their reactions and what they're going to do. Even if the ideology embodied by Silicon Valley is the universe's sole, shining example of true truth and nothing else is even close, they're still going to find themselves having an increasingly difficult time navigating or even understanding the rest of the world, if they can't tolerate any other ideologies within themselves to give them those other perspectives on the world. Diversity really is important.
neonate 8y ago
http://archive.is/FtzDZ http://archive.is/FtzDZ
- a9entroy 8y ago
  Lifesaver, you are.
- ur-whale 8y ago
  Thank you.
propman 8y ago
The significant backlash from both left and right and the hubris is skipping the senate hearing combined with Trump’s executive order threatens to actually hurt Google, forcing him to show up. Google is the most powerful lobbyist in US history so they’re pretty immune to all this and control all legislation passed that pertains to them but with the public bipartisan backlash, maybe they feel threatened.
- kyrra 8y ago
  Google had offered someone else to appear (their top lawyer). It's unclear when the senate committee decided to reject this person and require Sundar or Larry to show up. It's very possible he had other things already lined up that weren't easily changeable.
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    If every other tech CEO can show up, he can. "I have other things going on" is not an excuse to blow off a DC committee meeting. Unless it's a life-threatening condition, you go. And, no, your lawyer isn't the same thing. They want the head man to answer. You can be thrown in jail for contempt of Congress. Does anyone know if any CEO in the history of the nation has ever not shown up at one of these things?
    - batbomb 8y ago
      Mark Zuckerberg didn’t show up
      - tareqak 8y ago
        He did show up to one earlier in the year when he and only he was asked to present himself. He didn't show up to the EU and/or UK hearings though.
        ipsum2 8y ago
        iirc the CTO of FB showed up.
tbabb 8y ago
Since when does the government get to police ideological speech, or complain about "bias"? Google could in principle make its results insanely left-leaning and the first amendment should protect them. Are we going to let the government choose which results get suppressed to suit its own needs? They must be very careful not to let the narrative become "we don't bias our results, we swear!" (even if it's true) because that validates the notion that the government is allowed to complain about it, and puts the burden on them to prove it. Their position should be a very firm "don't tell us what to f*cking do."
- User23 8y ago
  Government represents the people, and the people have a right to have their concerns about bias voiced by their elected representatives. Obviously those representatives are still bound by the constitution with regards to legislative actions they can take.
- thwy12321 8y ago
  Somehow you've been corralled into thinking that extremely large corporations are different than government entities. Both pose the same threats to society, and in some cases where corporations control the flow of information, they can hold huge amounts of power.
- fvdessen 8y ago
  > Google could in principle make its results insanely left-leaning and the first amendment should protect them. Well, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. While the Government cannot police google's speech, it can certainly break it up with anti-monopoly laws.
  - tbabb 8y ago
    "Say more conservative things or else we'll take regulatory action against your company" sounds to me like an extremely first amendment-violating abuse of government power.
    - 8y ago
ronilan 8y ago
Why was the WSJ title edited and the “U.S.” qualifier added? Does Google have any other CEOs beside Sundar?
- hcnews 8y ago
  It seems like a copy-paste mistake. The wsj page has US just before the title. Someone should edit this title.
- tlb 8y ago
  Fixed, thanks.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
There was never any evidence whatsoever that Google was doing anything to conservative sources. The only thing this is going to lead to is the same thing it lead to on Twitter: policing leftist sources that much harder so they can say, "See? We're not biased!"
PHGamer 8y ago
I dont think google should be regulated, they are free to censor. on the other hand i wouldnt cry if the GOP broke them all social sites up as it really is just an oligarchy. If only google blocked alex jones and he stayed on FB then i wouldnt see an issue because competition. However, i think its fair to say they are following the exact same policies so theres no competition.
- prolikewh0a 8y ago
  >I dont think google should be regulated, they are free to censor. Why do we willingly allow private governments, especially those with an enormous amount of power over people? Who would ever want these companies with hundreds of millions to a billion+ users to be allowed to censor other than complying with local laws? In my opinion, Google, Facebook, and other large corporations are a threat to our democracy & elections in a much larger way than any Russia claim that could be made. Censorship on the level that Google could and probably does pull off is a major concern and could swing elections that directly effect Americans negatively at the benefit of Google.
  - ardy42 8y ago
    > Why do we willingly allow private governments, especially those with an enormous amount of power over people? Who would ever want these companies with hundreds of millions to a billion+ users to be allowed to censor other than complying with local laws? It's because people confuse the law with the principles it was meant to implement, so they stop their analysis after they've determined legality/illegality. Hypothetically, you could engineer away freedom of speech and freedom of assembly without changing the Constitution at all, if one corporation owned all the land and all the communication facilities in the US. It could enact a draconian, ideological censorship regime just by exercising its property rights, and that would be Constitutionally kosher because it's not an organization classified as "government." Antitrust law, etc. is not part of the Constitution and could Constitutionally be repealed or gutted. The Constitution was written to prevent many particular forms of tyranny and violations of rights, but it doesn't protect from all of them. That's why you can't stop with it; oftentimes you have to look deeper.
Fede_V 8y ago
You almost have to admire the total ruthlessness of republican operatives. By constantly playing on the offensive, they've put Facebook and Twitter on a constantly defensive posture worried about being called out as having 'liberal bias'. The fact that Jack had to personally intervene to stop his employees from banning Alex Jones (after numerous egregious violations) speaks to the power of this approach.
- qubax 8y ago
  > By constantly playing on the offensive, they've put Facebook and Twitter on a constantly defensive posture worried about being called out as having 'liberal bias'. Jack Dorsey and Zuckerburg said their company had liberal bias. We know google does. > The fact that Jack had to personally intervene to stop his employees from banning Alex Jones (after numerous egregious violations) speaks to the power of this approach. Alex Jones got banned anyways. For things far more benign than say what sarah jeong wrote. Stop it. It's been proven that there is bias. The only question is what, if anything, should be done about it. What's with the blatant dishonesty here? How can there be an honest discussion when people outright lie?
  - dmix 8y ago
    For anyone needing a source regarding @Jack: > Twitter is so liberal that its conservative employees ‘don’t feel safe to express their opinions,’ says CEO Jack Dorsey https://www.recode.net/2018/9/14/17857622/twitter-liberal-employees-conservative-trump-politics https://www.recode.net/2018/9/14/17857622/twitter-liberal-em... There is no way this hasn't trickled down to their moderation and banning policies.
    - komali2 8y ago
      >“They do feel silenced by just the general swirl of what they perceive to be the broader percentage of leanings within the company, and I don’t think that’s fair or right.” I can't think of any reasonable solution to the problem as I see it: San Francisco is a city full of liberals, Twitter HQ is in San Francisco, therefore Twitter is full of liberals. I guess Twitter could try to import people from like Utah, but that may not work because they might just end up importing more liberals (tech workers willing to move to SF). Also, it's not necessarily Twitter's job to equalize the political beliefs of a city. They can't ask "are you liberal or conservative" on an application, it's currently comically illegal and also I'd say horribly unethical and therefore should not be made legal. Therefore, I think the only solution is the exact one that's in place - if a person at work feels threatened for any reason, they should be allowed to get a resolution, either via HR or the law if need be. That being said, "everyone else has a different political opinion than me" doesn't necessarily seem threatening to me, and I say that as a declared liberal that grew up in the deep South. I'd be very interested in learning more about why the Twitter employees that presumably reached out to Dorsey feel uncomfortable expressing their opinions.
root_axis 8y ago
If some people consider google search results to be biased why don't they just use another search engine? It seems contradictory to claim that something is fundamentally wrong with google's search results but also claim that the results are so good that the alternatives are unacceptable.
- Cyclone_ 8y ago
  They could be good in some ways but bad in other ways(e.g. censoring information to help a candidate Google favors)
  - root_axis 8y ago
    Ok. So like any product, the consumer can weigh the good against the bad and then make the choice to use the product that they prefer the most. This is especially true in the case of search engines which cost no money for the consumer thus there is no risk to considering alternatives.
buboard 8y ago
no talk about antitrust/ breaking it up?
oh-kumudo 8y ago
They have to, the current admin is threatening to break them up. Google isn't sworn to a political ideology, even its employees are overwhelmingly concentrated at the end of the spectrum.
techntoke 8y ago
Where is the P2P decentralized search engine to rescue the world? Why is everyone set on cloud hosting, when we should be looking at ways to federate cloud resources and distribute them.
jonathankoren 8y ago
There’s a delightful irony of those that loudly advocate for small government, laissez faire regulation, and claim to support free speech, to want a large government bureaucracy to tell a private company on what they should be compelled publish.
a_hypotehsis 8y ago
The right way POLITICALLY to interpret recent claims of "bias" against Google is as a preparation of the battlefield for successful anti-trust action down the road. i.e., it's just "politics". ...but then again, the Google Doodle I see today is: "register to vote!" That's clearly an attempt to put a thumb on the scales, against a party and administration that is threatening anti-trust action against Google. I'm already voting the way Google wants me to, but a shovel is a shovel.
- travmatt 8y ago
  You believe providing citizens information on how to vote is putting a thumb of the scales and biasing voters, and instructing you on how to vote?
  - a_hypotehsis 8y ago
    Thanks for the comment! I did not and would not classify this as an "instruction". However, given what we know about voter demographics and turnout in the United States during "mid-term" elections (low turnout among young people, with much "green field" to expand into)... it's clearly an attempt to influence the election, in the favor of Google shareholders' interest. I'd cite references, but they are too easy to Google (heh). It's a shovel all right. (PS -- don't get me wrong or reflexively downvote me for perceived partisanship -- my party interests align with Google's in this matter, outside of anti-trust issues) EDIT: to add, Google ran no such Doodle for National Voter Registration day last year, according to their archives. HMMMMM.
- archagon 8y ago
  I mean, if broadcasting an innocuous "register to vote" is taken as bias against the party in power, then maybe it says something about that party.
  - a_hypotehsis 8y ago
    I agree with you, though it's specific to the US Republican party (not just whatever party is in power). It's definitely saying something. Their key demographics are relatively more registered to vote and relatively more likely to vote. General "get out the vote" and "register to vote" campaigns favor the Democrats. I'm in favor of such campaigns generally, but in this case it's quite self-serving.

111 points by tareqak 8y ago

polskibus 8y ago

Why a private meeting? Surely it's transparency Google needs to regain public trust?

davidw 8y ago
The GOP lawmakers aren't interested in public trust, but in gaining leverage - that would be my thought, at least.
- anoncoward111 8y ago
  This is correct. Yesterday I was downvoted for defending Alex Jones' right to free speech, and today I will be downvoted for defending Google from overzealous Republicans. shrugs
  - anoncoward2e20 8y ago
    Yes. For those who want a good read on history, check this out "Divided We Stand". (author is an establishment, mainstream historian of Congress.) https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/50/divided-we-stand/ https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/50/divided-we-stand/
  - geodel 8y ago
    Just downvoted? Not provided strange arguments like "Right to free speech is not right free reach" or Google/FB/Apple/Twitter are private companies and do not owe anything to whom they don't like?
    - User23 8y ago
      I know you’re kidding and this is funny, because corporations couldn’t even exist without the state passing statutes allowing incorporation.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    Those two situations are completely and utterly different. Apples and lug wrenches, as it were.
  - nova22033 8y ago
    >shrugs reads the constitution. Fails to find the part where you have a right NOT to be downvoted. shrugs
- reaperducer 8y ago
  The GOP lawmakers aren't interested in public trust, but in gaining leverage This isn't a GOP or DNC thing. All of Congress is peeved as Google's apparent contempt for how the nation works: https://www.cnet.com/news/google-is-a-no-show-at-the-washington-dc-tech-hearings-stoking-anger-in-congress/ https://www.cnet.com/news/google-is-a-no-show-at-the-washing... IME, the lawmakers agreed to go "private" with the meeting in order to get Google to even talk to them.
  - davidw 8y ago
    There are legit problems with Google and FB and so on, but I don't trust the current congress to come up with sensible ideas. Not one bit.
  - bduerst 8y ago
    If Congress is peeved, then they shouldn't have rejected the VP: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/404268-senate-intel-invites-alphabet-ceo-to-testify-rejecting-company-offer-of-vp https://thehill.com/policy/technology/404268-senate-intel-in...
- anoncoward2e20 8y ago
  History of this. Good read: "Divided We Stand". (author is an establishment, mainstream historian of Congress.) https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/50/divided-we-stand/ https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/50/divided-we-stand/
antsar 8y ago
Is "public trust" actually a problem for Google? In my experience, most people just don't care.
- asdkhadsj 8y ago
  Very meaningful question. Echo chambers tend to think their influence is far greater than it is. Much of HN may be growing resentment, but that's far from reflective on the population as a whole. Even if it's considered the beginning of a trend, the question of what does the public actually think - do they actually care still stands. edit: I a word.
neonate 8y ago
FTA: "and again at a public hearing this year".
- polskibus 8y ago
  Having a private meeting before that looks like they wanted to establish a secret deal first and do the PR later. I'm not saying that's what Google wants to do, just that it's bad PR imho.
natch 8y ago
The GOP is not big on transparency and accountability so it's no surprise.
oh-kumudo 8y ago
Even US government doesn't have public trust right now. I don't think Americans trust anyone/anything under current political climate.

spbaar 8y ago

He better have the chuptzpah to come out of the meeting telling the truth that Google results do not have an ideological bias and consider his civic duty complete after showing lawmakers evidence of such. We've seen what happens at Facebook when they try to make sure the range of opinions published is "neutral". I've seen people complain that the little 'i' symbol next to news stories on Facebook that details the viewpoint and credibility of the linked site is discriminatory. There will always be a constituency for people who love to play victims to social media companies. That should not affect their decisions.

colordrops 8y ago
Google search results and news absolutely have a bias. These services aren't made in a vacuum. They are made and tuned by people with biases. Technology doesn't have some special ability to sort out ground truth from human bias. It just reflects our biases. As mentioned elsewhere in the comments, the question shouldn't be whether google is biased or not, but whether the government should be getting involved at all.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  You'd be extremely hard pressed to prove that it's an anti-right wing bias, though.
  - jerf 8y ago
    It's pretty easy. Hacker News seems to think Google seems pretty fair, since we're all "everything is biased and the filter bubble is inescapable, oh, wait, are we talking about Google? Things are great and the government is persecuting them." Hacker News is on the left side of the US as a whole and extremely hostile to Republicans in general and Trump specifically. If HN thinks Google is fair, that's nearly ipso facto proof it's quite substantially biased. Silicon Valley's lack of ideological diversity is a big problem for them. I don't mean from the point of view of being right or wrong in that ideology, I mean from the point of view of looking out at the rest of the world and modeling their reactions and what they're going to do. Even if the ideology embodied by Silicon Valley is the universe's sole, shining example of true truth and nothing else is even close, they're still going to find themselves having an increasingly difficult time navigating or even understanding the rest of the world, if they can't tolerate any other ideologies within themselves to give them those other perspectives on the world. Diversity really is important.

neonate 8y ago

http://archive.is/FtzDZ http://archive.is/FtzDZ

a9entroy 8y ago
Lifesaver, you are.
ur-whale 8y ago
Thank you.

propman 8y ago

The significant backlash from both left and right and the hubris is skipping the senate hearing combined with Trump’s executive order threatens to actually hurt Google, forcing him to show up. Google is the most powerful lobbyist in US history so they’re pretty immune to all this and control all legislation passed that pertains to them but with the public bipartisan backlash, maybe they feel threatened.

kyrra 8y ago
Google had offered someone else to appear (their top lawyer). It's unclear when the senate committee decided to reject this person and require Sundar or Larry to show up. It's very possible he had other things already lined up that weren't easily changeable.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  If every other tech CEO can show up, he can. "I have other things going on" is not an excuse to blow off a DC committee meeting. Unless it's a life-threatening condition, you go. And, no, your lawyer isn't the same thing. They want the head man to answer. You can be thrown in jail for contempt of Congress. Does anyone know if any CEO in the history of the nation has ever not shown up at one of these things?
  - batbomb 8y ago
    Mark Zuckerberg didn’t show up
    - tareqak 8y ago
      He did show up to one earlier in the year when he and only he was asked to present himself. He didn't show up to the EU and/or UK hearings though.
      - ipsum2 8y ago
        iirc the CTO of FB showed up.

tbabb 8y ago

Since when does the government get to police ideological speech, or complain about "bias"? Google could in principle make its results insanely left-leaning and the first amendment should protect them. Are we going to let the government choose which results get suppressed to suit its own needs? They must be very careful not to let the narrative become "we don't bias our results, we swear!" (even if it's true) because that validates the notion that the government is allowed to complain about it, and puts the burden on them to prove it. Their position should be a very firm "don't tell us what to f*cking do."

User23 8y ago
Government represents the people, and the people have a right to have their concerns about bias voiced by their elected representatives. Obviously those representatives are still bound by the constitution with regards to legislative actions they can take.
thwy12321 8y ago
Somehow you've been corralled into thinking that extremely large corporations are different than government entities. Both pose the same threats to society, and in some cases where corporations control the flow of information, they can hold huge amounts of power.
fvdessen 8y ago
> Google could in principle make its results insanely left-leaning and the first amendment should protect them. Well, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. While the Government cannot police google's speech, it can certainly break it up with anti-monopoly laws.
- tbabb 8y ago
  "Say more conservative things or else we'll take regulatory action against your company" sounds to me like an extremely first amendment-violating abuse of government power.
  - 8y ago

ronilan 8y ago

Why was the WSJ title edited and the “U.S.” qualifier added? Does Google have any other CEOs beside Sundar?

hcnews 8y ago
It seems like a copy-paste mistake. The wsj page has US just before the title. Someone should edit this title.
tlb 8y ago
Fixed, thanks.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

There was never any evidence whatsoever that Google was doing anything to conservative sources. The only thing this is going to lead to is the same thing it lead to on Twitter: policing leftist sources that much harder so they can say, "See? We're not biased!"

PHGamer 8y ago

I dont think google should be regulated, they are free to censor. on the other hand i wouldnt cry if the GOP broke them all social sites up as it really is just an oligarchy. If only google blocked alex jones and he stayed on FB then i wouldnt see an issue because competition. However, i think its fair to say they are following the exact same policies so theres no competition.

prolikewh0a 8y ago
>I dont think google should be regulated, they are free to censor. Why do we willingly allow private governments, especially those with an enormous amount of power over people? Who would ever want these companies with hundreds of millions to a billion+ users to be allowed to censor other than complying with local laws? In my opinion, Google, Facebook, and other large corporations are a threat to our democracy & elections in a much larger way than any Russia claim that could be made. Censorship on the level that Google could and probably does pull off is a major concern and could swing elections that directly effect Americans negatively at the benefit of Google.
- ardy42 8y ago
  > Why do we willingly allow private governments, especially those with an enormous amount of power over people? Who would ever want these companies with hundreds of millions to a billion+ users to be allowed to censor other than complying with local laws? It's because people confuse the law with the principles it was meant to implement, so they stop their analysis after they've determined legality/illegality. Hypothetically, you could engineer away freedom of speech and freedom of assembly without changing the Constitution at all, if one corporation owned all the land and all the communication facilities in the US. It could enact a draconian, ideological censorship regime just by exercising its property rights, and that would be Constitutionally kosher because it's not an organization classified as "government." Antitrust law, etc. is not part of the Constitution and could Constitutionally be repealed or gutted. The Constitution was written to prevent many particular forms of tyranny and violations of rights, but it doesn't protect from all of them. That's why you can't stop with it; oftentimes you have to look deeper.

Fede_V 8y ago

You almost have to admire the total ruthlessness of republican operatives. By constantly playing on the offensive, they've put Facebook and Twitter on a constantly defensive posture worried about being called out as having 'liberal bias'. The fact that Jack had to personally intervene to stop his employees from banning Alex Jones (after numerous egregious violations) speaks to the power of this approach.

qubax 8y ago
> By constantly playing on the offensive, they've put Facebook and Twitter on a constantly defensive posture worried about being called out as having 'liberal bias'. Jack Dorsey and Zuckerburg said their company had liberal bias. We know google does. > The fact that Jack had to personally intervene to stop his employees from banning Alex Jones (after numerous egregious violations) speaks to the power of this approach. Alex Jones got banned anyways. For things far more benign than say what sarah jeong wrote. Stop it. It's been proven that there is bias. The only question is what, if anything, should be done about it. What's with the blatant dishonesty here? How can there be an honest discussion when people outright lie?
- dmix 8y ago
  For anyone needing a source regarding @Jack: > Twitter is so liberal that its conservative employees ‘don’t feel safe to express their opinions,’ says CEO Jack Dorsey https://www.recode.net/2018/9/14/17857622/twitter-liberal-employees-conservative-trump-politics https://www.recode.net/2018/9/14/17857622/twitter-liberal-em... There is no way this hasn't trickled down to their moderation and banning policies.
  - komali2 8y ago
    >“They do feel silenced by just the general swirl of what they perceive to be the broader percentage of leanings within the company, and I don’t think that’s fair or right.” I can't think of any reasonable solution to the problem as I see it: San Francisco is a city full of liberals, Twitter HQ is in San Francisco, therefore Twitter is full of liberals. I guess Twitter could try to import people from like Utah, but that may not work because they might just end up importing more liberals (tech workers willing to move to SF). Also, it's not necessarily Twitter's job to equalize the political beliefs of a city. They can't ask "are you liberal or conservative" on an application, it's currently comically illegal and also I'd say horribly unethical and therefore should not be made legal. Therefore, I think the only solution is the exact one that's in place - if a person at work feels threatened for any reason, they should be allowed to get a resolution, either via HR or the law if need be. That being said, "everyone else has a different political opinion than me" doesn't necessarily seem threatening to me, and I say that as a declared liberal that grew up in the deep South. I'd be very interested in learning more about why the Twitter employees that presumably reached out to Dorsey feel uncomfortable expressing their opinions.

root_axis 8y ago

If some people consider google search results to be biased why don't they just use another search engine? It seems contradictory to claim that something is fundamentally wrong with google's search results but also claim that the results are so good that the alternatives are unacceptable.

Cyclone_ 8y ago
They could be good in some ways but bad in other ways(e.g. censoring information to help a candidate Google favors)
- root_axis 8y ago
  Ok. So like any product, the consumer can weigh the good against the bad and then make the choice to use the product that they prefer the most. This is especially true in the case of search engines which cost no money for the consumer thus there is no risk to considering alternatives.

buboard 8y ago

no talk about antitrust/ breaking it up?

oh-kumudo 8y ago

They have to, the current admin is threatening to break them up. Google isn't sworn to a political ideology, even its employees are overwhelmingly concentrated at the end of the spectrum.

techntoke 8y ago

Where is the P2P decentralized search engine to rescue the world? Why is everyone set on cloud hosting, when we should be looking at ways to federate cloud resources and distribute them.

jonathankoren 8y ago

There’s a delightful irony of those that loudly advocate for small government, laissez faire regulation, and claim to support free speech, to want a large government bureaucracy to tell a private company on what they should be compelled publish.

a_hypotehsis 8y ago

The right way POLITICALLY to interpret recent claims of "bias" against Google is as a preparation of the battlefield for successful anti-trust action down the road. i.e., it's just "politics". ...but then again, the Google Doodle I see today is: "register to vote!" That's clearly an attempt to put a thumb on the scales, against a party and administration that is threatening anti-trust action against Google. I'm already voting the way Google wants me to, but a shovel is a shovel.

travmatt 8y ago
You believe providing citizens information on how to vote is putting a thumb of the scales and biasing voters, and instructing you on how to vote?
- a_hypotehsis 8y ago
  Thanks for the comment! I did not and would not classify this as an "instruction". However, given what we know about voter demographics and turnout in the United States during "mid-term" elections (low turnout among young people, with much "green field" to expand into)... it's clearly an attempt to influence the election, in the favor of Google shareholders' interest. I'd cite references, but they are too easy to Google (heh). It's a shovel all right. (PS -- don't get me wrong or reflexively downvote me for perceived partisanship -- my party interests align with Google's in this matter, outside of anti-trust issues) EDIT: to add, Google ran no such Doodle for National Voter Registration day last year, according to their archives. HMMMMM.
archagon 8y ago
I mean, if broadcasting an innocuous "register to vote" is taken as bias against the party in power, then maybe it says something about that party.
- a_hypotehsis 8y ago
  I agree with you, though it's specific to the US Republican party (not just whatever party is in power). It's definitely saying something. Their key demographics are relatively more registered to vote and relatively more likely to vote. General "get out the vote" and "register to vote" campaigns favor the Democrats. I'm in favor of such campaigns generally, but in this case it's quite self-serving.