13 ms·

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

by 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.
  - creaghpatr 8y ago
    Sure, but that's a dishonest straw man argument you've just made.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      But that's the exact situation at hand.
    - komali2 8y ago
      Why is it only GOP lawmakers meeting with Google, after the GOP president complained about anti-gop bias?
      - manfredo 8y ago
        Because if Google is biased against conservatives, Democracts don't stand to benefit from helping point it out. Pointing out that complainers disproportionately come from a certain demographic does not automatically invalidate the complaint. Why is it mostly left wing people complaining about fake news or hate speech on these platforms, why do most complaints about misogyny come from women? Is it because the complaints in question are fabricated, or because one portion of the population is disproportionately affected?
        jonathankoren 8y ago
        But liberal media complaints are manufactured. We can say this for certain, because multiple GOP operatives have repeated admitted it over the decades. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/16/books/chapters/what-liberal-media.html https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/16/books/chapters/what-liber...
      - creaghpatr 8y ago
        Sounds like you answered your own question.
        komali2 8y ago
- wavefarer 8y ago
  So censorship through legislation? Not sure what point you're trying to make here...
- bradford 8y ago
  Eh... there's a specific legal bar that needs to be met in order to invoke anti-monopoly laws. Whether or not that bar is met is an entirely different matter from a companies freedom to speech.
  - MaysonL 8y ago
    And that bar is: approval by the prosecutorial authority and judiciary. If the right judges are chosen, the executive branch can prosecute and convict a ham sandwich.
- magnetic 8y ago
  Wouldn't it do that for reasons that are independent from the political nature of the results they provide?
- andylei 8y ago
  > Well, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences When the government is the agent of "consequences", that's exactly what freedom of speech is.
  - ardy42 8y ago
    >> Well, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences > When the government is the agent of "consequences", that's exactly what freedom of speech is. You're talking about the First Amendment, not freedom of speech.
    - x220 8y ago
      And that's what we are talking about. We're talking about lawmakers and regulations. If you want to attack liberal values from that direction, please do it when it is actually relevant.
- thrmsforbfast 8y ago
  > 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. Does the first amendment prevent the government from using economic regulations to punish political speech by companies? There's actually a lot of SCOTUS case law on this question. Including very recent cases, such as http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-rules-narrowly-for-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-cake-case/ http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-rul... > But the critical question of when and how Phillips’ right to exercise his religion can be limited had to be determined, Kennedy emphasized, in a proceeding that was not tainted by hostility to religion. Here, Kennedy observed, the “neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised” by comments by members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. At one hearing, Kennedy stressed, commissioners repeatedly “endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community. Similar standards are applied elsewhere; e.g., local govt's limiting assembly (e.g. requiring permits) or speech (eg in council meetings) is, in general, acceptable. But only if those restrictions are applied without ideological/religious bias. Ditto for schools. If the executive branch systematically communicated that it was breaking up Google because of ideological disagreements between the ruling political party and Google's executive team, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see SCOTUS slap down that enforcement action.
  - ardy42 8y ago
    > Does the first amendment prevent the government from using economic regulations to punish political speech by companies? I doubt it. The politicians criticizing Google's political actions aren't going to be the ones prosecuting it or adjudicating its violations. It'll be referred to regulatory bodies that will determine if it's in violation or not in a much more neutral manner. The case you cited was about improper bias exhibited by an adjudicator in the course of deciding a case.
    - thrmsforbfast 8y ago
      Right, that's why I said "the executive branch" rather than e.g. "Trump himself". I.e. if there's a clear chain of evidence from the adjudicator to the politicians, then SCOTUS would really have to pivot hard on many fundamental constitutional questions. Only a GOP-first, conservative-second court would do that. The current conservative wing of the court is very much conservative-first. I should've been more explicit about my meaning :)
- x220 8y ago
  > freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences And that's where you're wrong. The federal government at least in principle guarantees no consequences from itself for merely communicating or publishing ideas.
  - ardy42 8y ago
    > And that's where you're wrong. The federal government at least in principle guarantees no consequences from itself for merely communicating or publishing ideas. They key word there is merely. The government can still punish you for your other actions. For instance, if you use your free speech rights to brag that you're dumping a pollutant into a river, which is unregulated and therefore legal, and the scrutiny you invited with your speech leads the government learn that you're also drug dealer, they can still prosecute you.
    - x220 8y ago
      >the government learn that you're also drug dealer, they can still prosecute you Yes, but that's not punishment for communicating or publishing ideas. You can admit things that can be used against you in a prosecution for a different crime, but you cannot be legally punished for merely communicating or publishing ideas. To use such an example as evidence that you are not free from consequence legitimizes the common sentiment that freedom of speech is a soft right that can be violated if we feel like it very strongly.
      - ardy42 8y ago
        > Yes, but that's not punishment for communicating or publishing ideas. Exactly my point. The government has been overlooking Google's antitrust issues, and Google doesn't get immunity from that scrutiny because some GOP congressmen don't like its First Amendment-protected actions. The antitrust scrutiny (and especially its timing) may seem like a "punishment for communicating or publishing ideas," but it's really not.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
rdtsc 8y ago
> 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? That's the part that confuses me. Why not embrace the bias. Those who think that Google is biased are not going to be convinced by the a PR statement saying "we are impartial, etc". They've already made up their mind. It's like with the leaked video we discussed recently. Was anyone surprised by the reaction? Not me, it was exactly what I expected. But their PR response to the leak is what bothered me: > Nothing was said at that meeting, or any other meeting, to suggest that any political bias ever influences the way we build or operate our products. Why not just be brave and come out and say "we support these values and not those values, we are not a neutral platform, please move on to another service if you don't agree".
- gkoberger 8y ago
  You'll never find a conservative banned on Google or Twitter or Facebook for saying they believe in trickle-down economics, or that they want a smaller government. Google/etc have policies on hate speech and false content, and for some reason banning those things is now considered a political bias.
  - komali2 8y ago
    I'm with you, I've yet to see actual evidence of political bias in a Google product. I.e. search, etc. I've heard conservatives say they're uncomfortable working there because "everyone" is liberal, but they also live in San Francisco California, where "everyone" is liberal, so that's hardly Google's fault.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      The way in which YouTube commenters are demonetized is very pointedly politically biased.
      - komali2 8y ago
        The only evidence I've seen of this is where hate-speech automatically triggers filters that causes videos to be demonetized, and after the uploader makes the case that no, this was (for example) a report on hate speech usage and therefore should be allowed, the video is re-monetized. For example: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/03/youtube-removes-the-atlantics-hail-trump-video-from-search/555941/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/03/youtu... I have yet to see evidence of actual enforced liberal bias by youtube.
partiallypro 8y ago
Don't confuse meeting with Congressmen with the government as a whole or even a form of regulation. Google used to meet with other administrations all the time. The meeting stems a lot more from their dodging the Senate Committee hearings that Twitter and Facebook both showed up to, and their bending to the Chinese government than anything else, rtfa. To reiterate, there's a reason this article is about Google and not Facebook and Twitter...because those two showed up to the Senate hearing...which was bipartisan.
- someonelse17 8y ago
  Google offered their top lawyer for the senate hearing but they rejected him, I guessing it's because they needed CEOs in order to maximize the pleasure from their exercise in public humiliation. The whole thing about snubbed senators getting mad and wanting revenge is beyond undemocratic it's tyrannical.
  - x220 8y ago
    It's not undemocratic merely because they are scared that two or three companies arguably control the majority of political discussion in America. It certainly doesn't follow the norms of American laws relating to public spaces and free speech, of which all important laws and decisions were made before the invention of the internet or its widespread adoption. Edit: If you downvote, tell me why you disagree.
  - partiallypro 8y ago
    The Senate hearing was about election influence of tech giants, not limited to any company bias (most of the hearing was about Russia/China,) not seeing how that's tyrannical and I'm incredibly libertarian. It was a show, as most public Senate hearings are...but my point is that the entire reason the CEO is meeting lawmakers now is because he snubbed them during the Senate hearing earlier. The Senate cares way way more about Google killing cooperation with the DoD and then cuddling up to China to censor search than anything else. Google's willingness to violate human rights to gain a foothold in a search market should bother more people than it currently does.
barnesto 8y ago
ideological speech? when did Google become a content creator? they are a search engine, among other things, and they skew results against conservatives. the fact Google owns the most used search engine, browser, and mobile OS means they can control the content distributed through those mediums. your 1A argument is moot. nobody is telling Google what they can say, which again, they don't produce content anyway. they are telling Google to make their platforms level for all points of view. speaking of 1A, InfoWars is all i have to say about that. last thing, if you don't think conservatives are being censored on FB, Twitter, and Google... well, there's no point arguing. it's happening. DuckDuckGo it.
- root_axis 8y ago
  If conservatives don't like google search results they're free to use bing or any other search engine on the free market. Why would government need to step in when anyone is free to use any search engine they like?
  - roenxi 8y ago
    Because the bias isn't as obvious. If one of the media majors is pushing for something political that is known and sorta expected. Anyone who cares knows that your choice of media source is potentially politically motivated. When I browse through a blog post that speaks positively of a product, I know there is a pretty decent (double-digit percentages) chance that it is a well disguised paid ad. I can at least try to factor that in to my decision making. Now with Google there is very much an assumption that they have an algorithm that applies some linear or non-linear math and comes up with a rating, sans some by-hand filtering for pornography and some other stuff that should be non-controversial to 80% of the population. If that assumption is wrong, government absolutely has a role to step in and expose that.
    - root_axis 8y ago
      > If that assumption is wrong, government absolutely has a role to step in and expose that. Why? Why can't people who are unsatisfied with the product just use a different product?
PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
>the first amendment should protect them The First Amendment has had many exceptions made for cases the founding fathers could not foresee and even cases they could but didn't consider the long term implications of. This could be just as valid as other exceptions. It'll be up the Supreme Court to decide.
mc32 8y ago
I think the problem would be if their Search aspect were to be classified as a utility, then they would have to be more careful of their results manipulation. So long as they are not regulated as such, then I don’t think the gov should get involved. But then again, that raises the question, should google be allowed lawfully to, say, supress all topics around Atheism, or Christmas or Hanukah or Russian meddling, if their management and ownership changed to one even more manipulative?
- sieabahlpark 8y ago
  Now you've shown that what they desire is a slippery slope for later.
- FireBeyond 8y ago
  > So long as they are not regulated as such And to think, it's the Republican Party that's been anchoring for removing any pretense of net neutrality. But now it's Bad(TM). Or at least Unfair(TM).
- magicalist 8y ago
  > I think the problem would be if their Search aspect were to be classified as a utility People have been writing this, but I'm curious what they mean, as there is no single legal "Utility" classification that could be put on something like google or facebook. Is there a specific legal approach people are talking about or is it just the commonly understood meaning of "utility" they're referring to?
  - creaghpatr 8y ago
    Same framework as net neutrality except with speech/content instead of bandwidth. Of course, net neutrality isn't en vogue with current lawmakers.
    - jonathankoren 8y ago
      But the problem is that it is content and not simply bandwidth. Bandwidth is objectively measured, content isn’t.
trothamel 8y ago
I'd imagine ever since campaign finance laws tried to limit corporate involvement in the political process. At what point does bias become a donation?
yongjik 8y ago
First, I'm no fan of Trump and I think GOP is full of shit. Also IANAL. But I don't think First Amendment protects Google, in principle. A corporation is not an individual, it's an artificial construction allowed by the society because its existence is useful to the society. It does not have human rights. And, frankly, I don't think Google's search results even qualify as "speech". (Again, IANAL.) You won't find a single Google employee (or executive) who will say "Yes, what you see on Google's search result represents my opinion." Besides, it's the fucking job of the government to "complain" about what corporations do. The government complains when a company overworks workers, pollutes a stream, or exercise their right to free speech by saying "This product is safe for baby!" when the government decides it is not. We can talk about whether this particular case is justified: reducing it into a 1st amendment issue is not very productive, IMHO.
throwawy3589 8y ago
US communications act 230[1]. Tech companies aren't liable for user content on their sites as long as they act as the equivalent of a digital public square. The minute they start selectively editing content they become a "publisher" and can be sued into oblivion for any illegal content they host. Google search is probably safe but Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter could be argued to be in violation with their policing of conservative content in the past year or so. Social media companies would basically cease to exist without the protections from US communications act 230 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
anony555 8y ago
US communications act 230[1]. Tech companies aren't liable for user content on their sites as long as they act as the equivalent of a digital public square. The minute they start selectively editing content they become a "publisher" and can be sued into oblivion for any illegal content they host. Google search is probably safe but Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter could be argued to be in violation with their policing of conservative content in the past year or so. Social media companies would basically cease to exist without the protections from US communications act 230 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
stcredzero 8y ago
Since when does the government get to police ideological speech, or complain about "bias"? Policing ideological speech: Laws against incitement. Fact: There are also laws about curbing private monopoly control of certain kinds of media in a given area. Government complaining about bias: Civil rights laws. Equal Opportunity Employment. When the actions of both powerful government organizations and powerful companies start to infringe on the speech of constituents, then the representatives elected to that government have taken action in the past. Google could in principle make its results insanely left-leaning and the first amendment should protect them. This has already happened. I don't think the first amendment would necessarily protect them. There is already a precedent for government to curb monopoly power in media. They must be very careful not to let the narrative become "we don't bias our results, we swear!" If "they" is Google, then the bird has already flown the coop in this case. Their position should be a very firm "don't tell us what to fcking do."* Should other companies start saying the same? Maybe having far less government would be far better across the board. When one concentrates power, someone figures out a way to abuse it. This applies as much to Google as it does to government. EDIT: No such thing as "Hate speech laws."
- woofyman 8y ago
  >Policing ideological speech: Hate speech laws. Hate speech is protected by the 1st amendment.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Corrected. Thanks. I fell into the linguistic trap.
- khuey 8y ago
  Hate speech is more or less legal in the United States.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Corrected.
- 8y ago
paulddraper 8y ago
The recent concerns about media biasing politics began in 2016. > Their position should be a very firm "don't tell us what to f-cking do." Makes complete sense to me. I assume that is the advice you have for others as well? Facebook's reaction to government concerns about "fake news": Don't tell us what to f-cking do! Facebook's reaction to running ads for Russians: Don't tell us what to f-cking do! Super PAC campaign ads: Don't tell us what to f-cking do! Donald Trump selecting who he sends Twitter messages to: Don't tell me what to f-cking do!
commandlinefan 8y ago
> Since when does the government get to police ideological speech I think they're concerned (as am I) about the false advertising aspect of it - they're not presenting themselves as, say, a newspaper which just runs the stories it runs, but as a _global_ web search company. If they're not actually searching the entire web, or if they're performing tricks to make it difficult to actually use their product the way it's implied that it's supposed to be used, they have to disclose that and make it clear.
- justin66 8y ago
  > I think they're concerned (as am I) about the false advertising aspect of it ... they have to disclose that and make it clear You don't believe false advertising is against the law in the United States, do you?
ur-whale 8y ago
I agree with everything you said. However, they are overtly claiming to be neutral and have no bias. If in practice they aren't neutral (and I don't event think they themselves can tell at this point, given how complex the search stack must be), they ought to be called on it.
qubax 8y ago
> Since when does the government get to police ideological speech, or complain about "bias"? It's the standard in most of the world. In parts of europe, you could go to jail for political speech and the media is tightly controlled. > They must be very careful not to let the narrative become "we don't bias our results, we swear!" (even if it's true) You know it's true. "Facebook, YouTube, and the like are publishers. As a society, we did not have qualms before the internet about publishers declining to amplify the views of people like Alex Jones. Even in the absence of YouTube's support, he arguably has far more of a voice now than he did in the pre-internet days, before he could host his own website. He has that on top of all the traditional means of communication he always had, which includes passing out flyers and yelling in the street. It is the responsibility of information disseminators to curate their content. Nobody is going to jail over these editorial choices, so the notion that this is a constitutional issue is pure hysteria. YouTube and Facebook are finally stepping up to the responsibility they have long owed us from the beginning." Why don't you have any principles or consistency? You support corporate censoring when people you dislike gets censored. You support government censorship when people you you gets censored. Is that a bit hypocritical?
- throwaway-hn123 8y ago
  Oh fuck off you alt-right cuck
chrisco255 8y ago
Google's power today is far greater than Microsoft's ever was in the 90s, and yet they had to sit through years of antitrust trials. Now we have Republicans arguing for fair treatment and threatening the use of the FTC...while Democrats (the traditional antitrust party) have sat on their hands over the past decade on these issues. Presumably, as far as I can tell, neither party has any particular morals. They're for things that are good for their base and against things that are bad for their base. And in this case, a left-leaning tech elite is good for Democrats...so we're not hearing a peep of antitrust talk from the Dems.
- voxl 8y ago
  Being left-leaning is not cause for antitrust. Making your argument a false equivocation. Should Google be subject to antitrust trials? I would say yes, but not because of a left or right leaning bias in their search results.
  - chrisco255 8y ago
    I think it's their 90% dominant position over the search market, mobile, advertising, and online video that should be subject to antitrust trials... As for the left/right leaning bias, I think that's all part of the same banana. Their powerful position gives them the flexibility to lean whatever way they choose with few, if any, market repercussions.
    - bobdole123456 8y ago
      Being the best in the market isn’t an antitrust issue. There isn’t any credible alternative to Google because they’re head and shoulders above everyone else. There are other search engines, they just don’t measure up.
      - obpacheco 8y ago
        its not just that google has a search engine, they also own youtube, which plays a huge role into how people are getting their news today, as people watch less and less television.
goblekitepe 8y ago
Google, Facebook, Twitter etc are profoundly different from any information medium that has existed in the past. As such, we must define new ways of thinking about their behavior, of considering the legality of their censorship. What's especially insidious about censorship online that forces us to think differently about it is that when users do a Google search, they generally don't expect political bias to influence search results. People are aware of the biases of different media outlets and can tailor their consumption of such media accordingly, but the black box of social media and internet search means the bias is invisible and we can't monitor it the way we can when we read the New York Times or watch Fox News. Yes these are private companies, but they monopolize what has become the public square and we must not allow the public square to be arbitrarily controlled by private entities.
- bduerst 8y ago
  You could make the same argument about television broadcasts in the 70's, radio in the 30's, and newsprint in the 1900's. The medium of communication doesn't make speech suddenly exempt from the first amendment - especially when the government is actively questioning if the speech in context is legal because they don't like the search results they see.
  - goblekitepe 8y ago
    Newsprint, Radio and Television are completely different for two reasons. First, they never had the monopoly control over information that Google has. But a more important distinction is this: Google has control over what content produced by individuals is seen by other individuals. Television, radio and newspapers are much more limited in scope, in that they are private groups which produce content that I consume. Google, Twitter and Facebook instead provide platforms for individuals to share their own content, which is what makes them part of the "public square", and which is why - combined with their monopoly control of the internet - their politically biased attempts at controlling what we see is censorship and cannot be tolerated.
    - bduerst 8y ago
geofft 8y ago
Except that next time that the left-wing folks are in power, Google is certainly not going to be attempting to ensure fair representation of left-leaning ideas. No, the right wing will insist that Google give fair time to a minority viewpoint and stand up to the government. This isn't creating a precedent that the government can tell Google what to do. It's creating a precedent that the right wing can tell Google what to do.
- travmatt 8y ago
  Recently Facebook, under the advisement of a conservative organization, censored the distribution of a thinkprogress article that argued Judge Kavanaughs opposition to roe v. wade, citing his legal work and his statements to that effect. This is the type fairness they’re looking to replicate: https://thinkprogress.org/facebook-weekly-standard-fact-check-thinkprogress-6176df1d5749/amp/ https://thinkprogress.org/facebook-weekly-standard-fact-chec...
mbostleman 8y ago
Not disagreeing with your defense of first principles, but how does that square with the concern about (social) tech that was used to influence elections? I just wish there wasn't a monopoly. Then we wouldn't even have to waste our time dealing with this.
alexryan 8y ago
People who live in the Silicon Valley bubble either don't seem to understand just how terrified people are in the heartland, or they don't care, or they don't understand the consequences of not caring. If Silicon Valley firms continue to use their power to bend reality to reflect the world view of the privileged coastal elites, then elections will no longer be viewed as free and fair. If that happens, then civil war is a real possibility.
- chris_mc 8y ago
  You mean if the minority in the heartland continue to exert an oversized influence due to representational bias in Congress? Maybe the heartland should realize that their days of being majority are over, both demographically and by proportion and stop using the coastal elites excuse now that it's the coastal majority. edit: I was just saying that the heartland is dying and doesn't yet realize it and that their death throes are going to screw us all. I don't think civil war is inevitable, I think that the "right wing" or whatever will fizzle over the coming years.
  - chrisco255 8y ago
    You understand that civil war would rebalance the majorities, right? You think a nation with the size and diversity of U.S. would be sustainable without a federated system of power among states?
  - thrower123 8y ago
    Anybody contemplating the possibility of civil war in the United States should really take a look at demographics of military service members and locations of military bases.
  - bcheung 8y ago
    Maybe people should embrace diversity, agree to disagree, and stop forcing their views on others. Democracy was never meant to legitimize oppression of minority views. The "heartland" is also biased to things like food production and military service to defend the rights of all (including the "coastal majority"). Probably not a good idea to unnecessarily stir the pot and risk secession or civil war. A little understanding, compassion, and tolerance goes a long way.
bcheung 8y ago
Is it ideological speech though? The issue is more subtle than that. What Google is doing seems much closer to a public service IMO. The question in my mind is, based on Google's positioning in the market how much does "common carrier" and "net neutrality" apply? They seem to be in a bit of a grey area. If they are an opinion site, yeah, 1st Amendment, no doubt. If they want to come out and communicate something completely separate from the search engine like a manifesto, that's also 1st Amendment. But the messaging and expectation from users is that the search engine is a machine without bias. Presenting something as unbiased when it is biased could be considered fraud. Also, is Google a curator of information or a generic provider that merely connects multiple parties like the postal system, ISPs, etc? If so, should net neutrality apply? One approach they could take is that the algorithms just reflect the information that is available and merely mirrors any bias in society. Then again, that raises the question of whether AI is racist, sexist, left/right wing, etc; and whether something should be done about it.
dgudkov 8y ago
>Their position should be a very firm "don't tell us what to f*cking do." Then this position should also extend to gender/diversity quotas and similar things pushed by the government.
twtw 8y ago
> Google could in principle make its results insanely left-leaning and the first amendment should protect them This is a far too simplistic and superficial analysis. Yes, Google could decide to position themselves as a publisher and claim the corresponding right to editorialize their content, but this would mean accepting a publishers' responsibility for all of the content. Historically, Google and others have been immune as a result of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields them from responsibility for libel, defamation, threats, falsehoods, child porn, fair housing violations, etc. They could choose to become a publisher in the eye of the law, but then they would have to play by the rules of a publisher. They can't simultaneously be protected as a publisher by freedom of the press and claim immunity as not a publisher.

by tbabb 8y ago

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.
- creaghpatr 8y ago
  Sure, but that's a dishonest straw man argument you've just made.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    But that's the exact situation at hand.
  - komali2 8y ago
    Why is it only GOP lawmakers meeting with Google, after the GOP president complained about anti-gop bias?
    - manfredo 8y ago
      Because if Google is biased against conservatives, Democracts don't stand to benefit from helping point it out. Pointing out that complainers disproportionately come from a certain demographic does not automatically invalidate the complaint. Why is it mostly left wing people complaining about fake news or hate speech on these platforms, why do most complaints about misogyny come from women? Is it because the complaints in question are fabricated, or because one portion of the population is disproportionately affected?
      - jonathankoren 8y ago
        But liberal media complaints are manufactured. We can say this for certain, because multiple GOP operatives have repeated admitted it over the decades. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/16/books/chapters/what-liberal-media.html https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/16/books/chapters/what-liber...
    - creaghpatr 8y ago
      Sounds like you answered your own question.
      - komali2 8y ago
wavefarer 8y ago
So censorship through legislation? Not sure what point you're trying to make here...
bradford 8y ago
Eh... there's a specific legal bar that needs to be met in order to invoke anti-monopoly laws. Whether or not that bar is met is an entirely different matter from a companies freedom to speech.
- MaysonL 8y ago
  And that bar is: approval by the prosecutorial authority and judiciary. If the right judges are chosen, the executive branch can prosecute and convict a ham sandwich.
magnetic 8y ago
Wouldn't it do that for reasons that are independent from the political nature of the results they provide?
andylei 8y ago
> Well, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences When the government is the agent of "consequences", that's exactly what freedom of speech is.
- ardy42 8y ago
  >> Well, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences > When the government is the agent of "consequences", that's exactly what freedom of speech is. You're talking about the First Amendment, not freedom of speech.
  - x220 8y ago
    And that's what we are talking about. We're talking about lawmakers and regulations. If you want to attack liberal values from that direction, please do it when it is actually relevant.
thrmsforbfast 8y ago
> 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. Does the first amendment prevent the government from using economic regulations to punish political speech by companies? There's actually a lot of SCOTUS case law on this question. Including very recent cases, such as http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-rules-narrowly-for-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-cake-case/ http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-rul... > But the critical question of when and how Phillips’ right to exercise his religion can be limited had to be determined, Kennedy emphasized, in a proceeding that was not tainted by hostility to religion. Here, Kennedy observed, the “neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised” by comments by members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. At one hearing, Kennedy stressed, commissioners repeatedly “endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community. Similar standards are applied elsewhere; e.g., local govt's limiting assembly (e.g. requiring permits) or speech (eg in council meetings) is, in general, acceptable. But only if those restrictions are applied without ideological/religious bias. Ditto for schools. If the executive branch systematically communicated that it was breaking up Google because of ideological disagreements between the ruling political party and Google's executive team, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see SCOTUS slap down that enforcement action.
- ardy42 8y ago
  > Does the first amendment prevent the government from using economic regulations to punish political speech by companies? I doubt it. The politicians criticizing Google's political actions aren't going to be the ones prosecuting it or adjudicating its violations. It'll be referred to regulatory bodies that will determine if it's in violation or not in a much more neutral manner. The case you cited was about improper bias exhibited by an adjudicator in the course of deciding a case.
  - thrmsforbfast 8y ago
    Right, that's why I said "the executive branch" rather than e.g. "Trump himself". I.e. if there's a clear chain of evidence from the adjudicator to the politicians, then SCOTUS would really have to pivot hard on many fundamental constitutional questions. Only a GOP-first, conservative-second court would do that. The current conservative wing of the court is very much conservative-first. I should've been more explicit about my meaning :)
x220 8y ago
> freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences And that's where you're wrong. The federal government at least in principle guarantees no consequences from itself for merely communicating or publishing ideas.
- ardy42 8y ago
  > And that's where you're wrong. The federal government at least in principle guarantees no consequences from itself for merely communicating or publishing ideas. They key word there is merely. The government can still punish you for your other actions. For instance, if you use your free speech rights to brag that you're dumping a pollutant into a river, which is unregulated and therefore legal, and the scrutiny you invited with your speech leads the government learn that you're also drug dealer, they can still prosecute you.
  - x220 8y ago
    >the government learn that you're also drug dealer, they can still prosecute you Yes, but that's not punishment for communicating or publishing ideas. You can admit things that can be used against you in a prosecution for a different crime, but you cannot be legally punished for merely communicating or publishing ideas. To use such an example as evidence that you are not free from consequence legitimizes the common sentiment that freedom of speech is a soft right that can be violated if we feel like it very strongly.
    - ardy42 8y ago
      > Yes, but that's not punishment for communicating or publishing ideas. Exactly my point. The government has been overlooking Google's antitrust issues, and Google doesn't get immunity from that scrutiny because some GOP congressmen don't like its First Amendment-protected actions. The antitrust scrutiny (and especially its timing) may seem like a "punishment for communicating or publishing ideas," but it's really not.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

rdtsc 8y ago

> 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? That's the part that confuses me. Why not embrace the bias. Those who think that Google is biased are not going to be convinced by the a PR statement saying "we are impartial, etc". They've already made up their mind. It's like with the leaked video we discussed recently. Was anyone surprised by the reaction? Not me, it was exactly what I expected. But their PR response to the leak is what bothered me: > Nothing was said at that meeting, or any other meeting, to suggest that any political bias ever influences the way we build or operate our products. Why not just be brave and come out and say "we support these values and not those values, we are not a neutral platform, please move on to another service if you don't agree".

gkoberger 8y ago
You'll never find a conservative banned on Google or Twitter or Facebook for saying they believe in trickle-down economics, or that they want a smaller government. Google/etc have policies on hate speech and false content, and for some reason banning those things is now considered a political bias.
- komali2 8y ago
  I'm with you, I've yet to see actual evidence of political bias in a Google product. I.e. search, etc. I've heard conservatives say they're uncomfortable working there because "everyone" is liberal, but they also live in San Francisco California, where "everyone" is liberal, so that's hardly Google's fault.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    The way in which YouTube commenters are demonetized is very pointedly politically biased.
    - komali2 8y ago
      The only evidence I've seen of this is where hate-speech automatically triggers filters that causes videos to be demonetized, and after the uploader makes the case that no, this was (for example) a report on hate speech usage and therefore should be allowed, the video is re-monetized. For example: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/03/youtube-removes-the-atlantics-hail-trump-video-from-search/555941/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/03/youtu... I have yet to see evidence of actual enforced liberal bias by youtube.

partiallypro 8y ago

Don't confuse meeting with Congressmen with the government as a whole or even a form of regulation. Google used to meet with other administrations all the time. The meeting stems a lot more from their dodging the Senate Committee hearings that Twitter and Facebook both showed up to, and their bending to the Chinese government than anything else, rtfa. To reiterate, there's a reason this article is about Google and not Facebook and Twitter...because those two showed up to the Senate hearing...which was bipartisan.

someonelse17 8y ago
Google offered their top lawyer for the senate hearing but they rejected him, I guessing it's because they needed CEOs in order to maximize the pleasure from their exercise in public humiliation. The whole thing about snubbed senators getting mad and wanting revenge is beyond undemocratic it's tyrannical.
- x220 8y ago
  It's not undemocratic merely because they are scared that two or three companies arguably control the majority of political discussion in America. It certainly doesn't follow the norms of American laws relating to public spaces and free speech, of which all important laws and decisions were made before the invention of the internet or its widespread adoption. Edit: If you downvote, tell me why you disagree.
- partiallypro 8y ago
  The Senate hearing was about election influence of tech giants, not limited to any company bias (most of the hearing was about Russia/China,) not seeing how that's tyrannical and I'm incredibly libertarian. It was a show, as most public Senate hearings are...but my point is that the entire reason the CEO is meeting lawmakers now is because he snubbed them during the Senate hearing earlier. The Senate cares way way more about Google killing cooperation with the DoD and then cuddling up to China to censor search than anything else. Google's willingness to violate human rights to gain a foothold in a search market should bother more people than it currently does.

barnesto 8y ago

ideological speech? when did Google become a content creator? they are a search engine, among other things, and they skew results against conservatives. the fact Google owns the most used search engine, browser, and mobile OS means they can control the content distributed through those mediums. your 1A argument is moot. nobody is telling Google what they can say, which again, they don't produce content anyway. they are telling Google to make their platforms level for all points of view. speaking of 1A, InfoWars is all i have to say about that. last thing, if you don't think conservatives are being censored on FB, Twitter, and Google... well, there's no point arguing. it's happening. DuckDuckGo it.

root_axis 8y ago
If conservatives don't like google search results they're free to use bing or any other search engine on the free market. Why would government need to step in when anyone is free to use any search engine they like?
- roenxi 8y ago
  Because the bias isn't as obvious. If one of the media majors is pushing for something political that is known and sorta expected. Anyone who cares knows that your choice of media source is potentially politically motivated. When I browse through a blog post that speaks positively of a product, I know there is a pretty decent (double-digit percentages) chance that it is a well disguised paid ad. I can at least try to factor that in to my decision making. Now with Google there is very much an assumption that they have an algorithm that applies some linear or non-linear math and comes up with a rating, sans some by-hand filtering for pornography and some other stuff that should be non-controversial to 80% of the population. If that assumption is wrong, government absolutely has a role to step in and expose that.
  - root_axis 8y ago
    > If that assumption is wrong, government absolutely has a role to step in and expose that. Why? Why can't people who are unsatisfied with the product just use a different product?

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago

>the first amendment should protect them The First Amendment has had many exceptions made for cases the founding fathers could not foresee and even cases they could but didn't consider the long term implications of. This could be just as valid as other exceptions. It'll be up the Supreme Court to decide.

mc32 8y ago

I think the problem would be if their Search aspect were to be classified as a utility, then they would have to be more careful of their results manipulation. So long as they are not regulated as such, then I don’t think the gov should get involved. But then again, that raises the question, should google be allowed lawfully to, say, supress all topics around Atheism, or Christmas or Hanukah or Russian meddling, if their management and ownership changed to one even more manipulative?

sieabahlpark 8y ago
Now you've shown that what they desire is a slippery slope for later.
FireBeyond 8y ago
> So long as they are not regulated as such And to think, it's the Republican Party that's been anchoring for removing any pretense of net neutrality. But now it's Bad(TM). Or at least Unfair(TM).
magicalist 8y ago
> I think the problem would be if their Search aspect were to be classified as a utility People have been writing this, but I'm curious what they mean, as there is no single legal "Utility" classification that could be put on something like google or facebook. Is there a specific legal approach people are talking about or is it just the commonly understood meaning of "utility" they're referring to?
- creaghpatr 8y ago
  Same framework as net neutrality except with speech/content instead of bandwidth. Of course, net neutrality isn't en vogue with current lawmakers.
  - jonathankoren 8y ago
    But the problem is that it is content and not simply bandwidth. Bandwidth is objectively measured, content isn’t.

trothamel 8y ago

I'd imagine ever since campaign finance laws tried to limit corporate involvement in the political process. At what point does bias become a donation?

yongjik 8y ago

First, I'm no fan of Trump and I think GOP is full of shit. Also IANAL. But I don't think First Amendment protects Google, in principle. A corporation is not an individual, it's an artificial construction allowed by the society because its existence is useful to the society. It does not have human rights. And, frankly, I don't think Google's search results even qualify as "speech". (Again, IANAL.) You won't find a single Google employee (or executive) who will say "Yes, what you see on Google's search result represents my opinion." Besides, it's the fucking job of the government to "complain" about what corporations do. The government complains when a company overworks workers, pollutes a stream, or exercise their right to free speech by saying "This product is safe for baby!" when the government decides it is not. We can talk about whether this particular case is justified: reducing it into a 1st amendment issue is not very productive, IMHO.

throwawy3589 8y ago

US communications act 230[1]. Tech companies aren't liable for user content on their sites as long as they act as the equivalent of a digital public square. The minute they start selectively editing content they become a "publisher" and can be sued into oblivion for any illegal content they host. Google search is probably safe but Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter could be argued to be in violation with their policing of conservative content in the past year or so. Social media companies would basically cease to exist without the protections from US communications act 230 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...

anony555 8y ago

US communications act 230[1]. Tech companies aren't liable for user content on their sites as long as they act as the equivalent of a digital public square. The minute they start selectively editing content they become a "publisher" and can be sued into oblivion for any illegal content they host. Google search is probably safe but Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter could be argued to be in violation with their policing of conservative content in the past year or so. Social media companies would basically cease to exist without the protections from US communications act 230 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...

stcredzero 8y ago

Since when does the government get to police ideological speech, or complain about "bias"? Policing ideological speech: Laws against incitement. Fact: There are also laws about curbing private monopoly control of certain kinds of media in a given area. Government complaining about bias: Civil rights laws. Equal Opportunity Employment. When the actions of both powerful government organizations and powerful companies start to infringe on the speech of constituents, then the representatives elected to that government have taken action in the past. Google could in principle make its results insanely left-leaning and the first amendment should protect them. This has already happened. I don't think the first amendment would necessarily protect them. There is already a precedent for government to curb monopoly power in media. They must be very careful not to let the narrative become "we don't bias our results, we swear!" If "they" is Google, then the bird has already flown the coop in this case. Their position should be a very firm "don't tell us what to fcking do."* Should other companies start saying the same? Maybe having far less government would be far better across the board. When one concentrates power, someone figures out a way to abuse it. This applies as much to Google as it does to government. EDIT: No such thing as "Hate speech laws."

woofyman 8y ago
>Policing ideological speech: Hate speech laws. Hate speech is protected by the 1st amendment.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Corrected. Thanks. I fell into the linguistic trap.
khuey 8y ago
Hate speech is more or less legal in the United States.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Corrected.
8y ago

paulddraper 8y ago

The recent concerns about media biasing politics began in 2016. > Their position should be a very firm "don't tell us what to f-cking do." Makes complete sense to me. I assume that is the advice you have for others as well? Facebook's reaction to government concerns about "fake news": Don't tell us what to f-cking do! Facebook's reaction to running ads for Russians: Don't tell us what to f-cking do! Super PAC campaign ads: Don't tell us what to f-cking do! Donald Trump selecting who he sends Twitter messages to: Don't tell me what to f-cking do!

commandlinefan 8y ago

> Since when does the government get to police ideological speech I think they're concerned (as am I) about the false advertising aspect of it - they're not presenting themselves as, say, a newspaper which just runs the stories it runs, but as a _global_ web search company. If they're not actually searching the entire web, or if they're performing tricks to make it difficult to actually use their product the way it's implied that it's supposed to be used, they have to disclose that and make it clear.

justin66 8y ago
> I think they're concerned (as am I) about the false advertising aspect of it ... they have to disclose that and make it clear You don't believe false advertising is against the law in the United States, do you?

ur-whale 8y ago

I agree with everything you said. However, they are overtly claiming to be neutral and have no bias. If in practice they aren't neutral (and I don't event think they themselves can tell at this point, given how complex the search stack must be), they ought to be called on it.

qubax 8y ago

> Since when does the government get to police ideological speech, or complain about "bias"? It's the standard in most of the world. In parts of europe, you could go to jail for political speech and the media is tightly controlled. > They must be very careful not to let the narrative become "we don't bias our results, we swear!" (even if it's true) You know it's true. "Facebook, YouTube, and the like are publishers. As a society, we did not have qualms before the internet about publishers declining to amplify the views of people like Alex Jones. Even in the absence of YouTube's support, he arguably has far more of a voice now than he did in the pre-internet days, before he could host his own website. He has that on top of all the traditional means of communication he always had, which includes passing out flyers and yelling in the street. It is the responsibility of information disseminators to curate their content. Nobody is going to jail over these editorial choices, so the notion that this is a constitutional issue is pure hysteria. YouTube and Facebook are finally stepping up to the responsibility they have long owed us from the beginning." Why don't you have any principles or consistency? You support corporate censoring when people you dislike gets censored. You support government censorship when people you you gets censored. Is that a bit hypocritical?

throwaway-hn123 8y ago
Oh fuck off you alt-right cuck

chrisco255 8y ago

Google's power today is far greater than Microsoft's ever was in the 90s, and yet they had to sit through years of antitrust trials. Now we have Republicans arguing for fair treatment and threatening the use of the FTC...while Democrats (the traditional antitrust party) have sat on their hands over the past decade on these issues. Presumably, as far as I can tell, neither party has any particular morals. They're for things that are good for their base and against things that are bad for their base. And in this case, a left-leaning tech elite is good for Democrats...so we're not hearing a peep of antitrust talk from the Dems.

voxl 8y ago
Being left-leaning is not cause for antitrust. Making your argument a false equivocation. Should Google be subject to antitrust trials? I would say yes, but not because of a left or right leaning bias in their search results.
- chrisco255 8y ago
  I think it's their 90% dominant position over the search market, mobile, advertising, and online video that should be subject to antitrust trials... As for the left/right leaning bias, I think that's all part of the same banana. Their powerful position gives them the flexibility to lean whatever way they choose with few, if any, market repercussions.
  - bobdole123456 8y ago
    Being the best in the market isn’t an antitrust issue. There isn’t any credible alternative to Google because they’re head and shoulders above everyone else. There are other search engines, they just don’t measure up.
    - obpacheco 8y ago
      its not just that google has a search engine, they also own youtube, which plays a huge role into how people are getting their news today, as people watch less and less television.

goblekitepe 8y ago

Google, Facebook, Twitter etc are profoundly different from any information medium that has existed in the past. As such, we must define new ways of thinking about their behavior, of considering the legality of their censorship. What's especially insidious about censorship online that forces us to think differently about it is that when users do a Google search, they generally don't expect political bias to influence search results. People are aware of the biases of different media outlets and can tailor their consumption of such media accordingly, but the black box of social media and internet search means the bias is invisible and we can't monitor it the way we can when we read the New York Times or watch Fox News. Yes these are private companies, but they monopolize what has become the public square and we must not allow the public square to be arbitrarily controlled by private entities.

bduerst 8y ago
You could make the same argument about television broadcasts in the 70's, radio in the 30's, and newsprint in the 1900's. The medium of communication doesn't make speech suddenly exempt from the first amendment - especially when the government is actively questioning if the speech in context is legal because they don't like the search results they see.
- goblekitepe 8y ago
  Newsprint, Radio and Television are completely different for two reasons. First, they never had the monopoly control over information that Google has. But a more important distinction is this: Google has control over what content produced by individuals is seen by other individuals. Television, radio and newspapers are much more limited in scope, in that they are private groups which produce content that I consume. Google, Twitter and Facebook instead provide platforms for individuals to share their own content, which is what makes them part of the "public square", and which is why - combined with their monopoly control of the internet - their politically biased attempts at controlling what we see is censorship and cannot be tolerated.
  - bduerst 8y ago

geofft 8y ago

Except that next time that the left-wing folks are in power, Google is certainly not going to be attempting to ensure fair representation of left-leaning ideas. No, the right wing will insist that Google give fair time to a minority viewpoint and stand up to the government. This isn't creating a precedent that the government can tell Google what to do. It's creating a precedent that the right wing can tell Google what to do.

travmatt 8y ago
Recently Facebook, under the advisement of a conservative organization, censored the distribution of a thinkprogress article that argued Judge Kavanaughs opposition to roe v. wade, citing his legal work and his statements to that effect. This is the type fairness they’re looking to replicate: https://thinkprogress.org/facebook-weekly-standard-fact-check-thinkprogress-6176df1d5749/amp/ https://thinkprogress.org/facebook-weekly-standard-fact-chec...

mbostleman 8y ago

Not disagreeing with your defense of first principles, but how does that square with the concern about (social) tech that was used to influence elections? I just wish there wasn't a monopoly. Then we wouldn't even have to waste our time dealing with this.

alexryan 8y ago

People who live in the Silicon Valley bubble either don't seem to understand just how terrified people are in the heartland, or they don't care, or they don't understand the consequences of not caring. If Silicon Valley firms continue to use their power to bend reality to reflect the world view of the privileged coastal elites, then elections will no longer be viewed as free and fair. If that happens, then civil war is a real possibility.

chris_mc 8y ago
You mean if the minority in the heartland continue to exert an oversized influence due to representational bias in Congress? Maybe the heartland should realize that their days of being majority are over, both demographically and by proportion and stop using the coastal elites excuse now that it's the coastal majority. edit: I was just saying that the heartland is dying and doesn't yet realize it and that their death throes are going to screw us all. I don't think civil war is inevitable, I think that the "right wing" or whatever will fizzle over the coming years.
- chrisco255 8y ago
  You understand that civil war would rebalance the majorities, right? You think a nation with the size and diversity of U.S. would be sustainable without a federated system of power among states?
- thrower123 8y ago
  Anybody contemplating the possibility of civil war in the United States should really take a look at demographics of military service members and locations of military bases.
- bcheung 8y ago
  Maybe people should embrace diversity, agree to disagree, and stop forcing their views on others. Democracy was never meant to legitimize oppression of minority views. The "heartland" is also biased to things like food production and military service to defend the rights of all (including the "coastal majority"). Probably not a good idea to unnecessarily stir the pot and risk secession or civil war. A little understanding, compassion, and tolerance goes a long way.

bcheung 8y ago

Is it ideological speech though? The issue is more subtle than that. What Google is doing seems much closer to a public service IMO. The question in my mind is, based on Google's positioning in the market how much does "common carrier" and "net neutrality" apply? They seem to be in a bit of a grey area. If they are an opinion site, yeah, 1st Amendment, no doubt. If they want to come out and communicate something completely separate from the search engine like a manifesto, that's also 1st Amendment. But the messaging and expectation from users is that the search engine is a machine without bias. Presenting something as unbiased when it is biased could be considered fraud. Also, is Google a curator of information or a generic provider that merely connects multiple parties like the postal system, ISPs, etc? If so, should net neutrality apply? One approach they could take is that the algorithms just reflect the information that is available and merely mirrors any bias in society. Then again, that raises the question of whether AI is racist, sexist, left/right wing, etc; and whether something should be done about it.

dgudkov 8y ago

>Their position should be a very firm "don't tell us what to f*cking do." Then this position should also extend to gender/diversity quotas and similar things pushed by the government.

twtw 8y ago

> Google could in principle make its results insanely left-leaning and the first amendment should protect them This is a far too simplistic and superficial analysis. Yes, Google could decide to position themselves as a publisher and claim the corresponding right to editorialize their content, but this would mean accepting a publishers' responsibility for all of the content. Historically, Google and others have been immune as a result of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields them from responsibility for libel, defamation, threats, falsehoods, child porn, fair housing violations, etc. They could choose to become a publisher in the eye of the law, but then they would have to play by the rules of a publisher. They can't simultaneously be protected as a publisher by freedom of the press and claim immunity as not a publisher.