8 ms·

> 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 f

> 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
        So how is it a strawman that the GOP is using governmental power to pressure Google (which does not censor conservative content) to show more conservative content? As Google does not censor conservative content, what else would only GOP officials be upset about? If it was general election integrity, the other major issue cross tech/politics right now, why aren't isn't it a bipartisan meeting? Actually, the GOP has downplayed election integrity issues, which further convinces me that it is not a strawman argument to claim the GOP is pressuring tech companies to show more pro-conservative content.
        zaroth 8y ago
        > As Google does not censor conservative content... There are certainly many anecdotal complaints about Google censoring or demonetizing conservatives on YouTube. There have been a few notable instances where Google has promoted incendiary content against conservatives in their search results “answers” — although those cases seemed to algorithms picking up tainted UGC. [1] Also anecdotally, Google News seems to present a highly scewed viewpoint (browsing logged off with no cookies, only inferred location from IP). I’m not aware of rigorous studies, but by no means would I take it as a foregone conclusion that Google is not censoring conservative content. [1] - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trudy-wade-google-search-result-california-republican-party/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trudy-wade-google-search-result...
        komali2 8y ago
        In the case of Trudy Wade, it was because a student blog was biased against her, which doesn't surprise or upset me. Because Google took it down and apologized, I surmise that this is evidence that they are not biased against conservatives. I appreciate your genuine approach here. The reason I'm being so militant on actual evidence is due to excellent coaching from many people I admire in my life to challenge assumptions and anecdote. Trust me, I'm great fun in design meetings. In this case, I'd agree with you that Google News presents generally liberal news. Generally I'd say this is because there is 1 conservative media conglomerate (Fox) vs so many liberal ones (CNN, NBC, etc), and meanwhile the many ones I would consider "fair" (Al Jazeera, BBC, NPR, NYTimes, WaPo, NHK) seem so anti-conservative because, well, conservative politicians keep doing some pretty shitty things. That being said, Fox is a default source on my uncookied google news, and I've seen Breitbart and other extraordinarily conservative sources, so I don't think there is a Google-level explicit bias, rather a failure on the part of conservative-leaning media to present a perspective as level-headed as, say, NPR. When the best it has to offer is Fox, Breitbart, and InfoWars, I'm not surprised it gets churned. Just checking through sources I had to block due to simply terribly ham-fisted propaganda attempts, here's other ones that show up on google news by default: Investor's Business Daily New York Post RealClearPolitics Screen Rant The Hill Washington Times nationalreview
- 0x8BADF00D 8y ago
  Those are two separate and unrelated issues. One issue is the perceived bias against conservatives on their platform, the other issue is whether or not Google is in violation of anti-trust laws. Both issues can be debated, but the way you’ve framed it is extremely unhelpful and uncharitable.
- fvdessen 8y ago
  It violates the spirit, but not the letter of the law. This is why supporting Free Speech as a value is important.
  - hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
    As another commenter posted, many court decisions have concluded violating the "spirit" as you put it is still unconstitutional.
  - komali2 8y ago
    See above, supreme Court has wrestled with this before, thus it does violate the letter of the law.
  - ur-whale 8y ago
    IANAL, but the little insight I have had over the years in the US legal system tells me the spirit of the law is rather rarely the heart of the discussion.
- stcredzero 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. Many YouTubers and many Twitter users would say more conservative things, but Google and Twitter actively discourage and ban users in a way which is pointedly biased. Some of those so targeted deserve such treatment. However, not all of them do. Many of them are simply in ideological disagreement. It's a dilemma. If monopolies and near-monopolies are allowed to use corporate power to police speech, then this is allowed in the letter of the law, but it stinks to high heaven as far as the spirit of free speech goes. On the other hand, the government shouldn't be in the business of policing speech. The way out of this dilemma is to break up near-monopoly power where it exists. Right now, there really isn't a good alternative to YouTube, and this near monopoly power lets them effectively police speech across the entirety of a certain kind of widespread culturally relevant media: That of personal video commentary.
  - tbabb 8y ago
    There is a big philosophical and legal difference between a population of companies each executing editorial/moderating power over content published on their own platforms and a central government doing the same thing over arbitrary content on arbitrary platforms. Who is doing the editing is extremely important. If a newspaper declines to publish a white supremacist screed in their op-ed column, that is not censorship. The screeching racist can always try and publish somewhere else, or publish themselves (online or in print), or yell in the streets. But if the government intervenes and tries to force/prevent any of those things from happening, that's censorship and it's unconstitutional. Completely different ballgame. It drives me up the wall that people think those cases are "equivalent".
    - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
      Not the right word I think. Of course it censorship Its just not government censorship, and thus not a protected mode of free speech. Not equivalent of course, but still censorship all the same. Free speech is an American value, not just a few words in the Constitution. I'm sympathetic when folks object to private censors. As an American, I'm offended as well.
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]

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
      So how is it a strawman that the GOP is using governmental power to pressure Google (which does not censor conservative content) to show more conservative content? As Google does not censor conservative content, what else would only GOP officials be upset about? If it was general election integrity, the other major issue cross tech/politics right now, why aren't isn't it a bipartisan meeting? Actually, the GOP has downplayed election integrity issues, which further convinces me that it is not a strawman argument to claim the GOP is pressuring tech companies to show more pro-conservative content.
      - zaroth 8y ago
        > As Google does not censor conservative content... There are certainly many anecdotal complaints about Google censoring or demonetizing conservatives on YouTube. There have been a few notable instances where Google has promoted incendiary content against conservatives in their search results “answers” — although those cases seemed to algorithms picking up tainted UGC. [1] Also anecdotally, Google News seems to present a highly scewed viewpoint (browsing logged off with no cookies, only inferred location from IP). I’m not aware of rigorous studies, but by no means would I take it as a foregone conclusion that Google is not censoring conservative content. [1] - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trudy-wade-google-search-result-california-republican-party/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trudy-wade-google-search-result...
        komali2 8y ago
        In the case of Trudy Wade, it was because a student blog was biased against her, which doesn't surprise or upset me. Because Google took it down and apologized, I surmise that this is evidence that they are not biased against conservatives. I appreciate your genuine approach here. The reason I'm being so militant on actual evidence is due to excellent coaching from many people I admire in my life to challenge assumptions and anecdote. Trust me, I'm great fun in design meetings. In this case, I'd agree with you that Google News presents generally liberal news. Generally I'd say this is because there is 1 conservative media conglomerate (Fox) vs so many liberal ones (CNN, NBC, etc), and meanwhile the many ones I would consider "fair" (Al Jazeera, BBC, NPR, NYTimes, WaPo, NHK) seem so anti-conservative because, well, conservative politicians keep doing some pretty shitty things. That being said, Fox is a default source on my uncookied google news, and I've seen Breitbart and other extraordinarily conservative sources, so I don't think there is a Google-level explicit bias, rather a failure on the part of conservative-leaning media to present a perspective as level-headed as, say, NPR. When the best it has to offer is Fox, Breitbart, and InfoWars, I'm not surprised it gets churned. Just checking through sources I had to block due to simply terribly ham-fisted propaganda attempts, here's other ones that show up on google news by default: Investor's Business Daily New York Post RealClearPolitics Screen Rant The Hill Washington Times nationalreview
0x8BADF00D 8y ago
Those are two separate and unrelated issues. One issue is the perceived bias against conservatives on their platform, the other issue is whether or not Google is in violation of anti-trust laws. Both issues can be debated, but the way you’ve framed it is extremely unhelpful and uncharitable.
fvdessen 8y ago
It violates the spirit, but not the letter of the law. This is why supporting Free Speech as a value is important.
- hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
  As another commenter posted, many court decisions have concluded violating the "spirit" as you put it is still unconstitutional.
- komali2 8y ago
  See above, supreme Court has wrestled with this before, thus it does violate the letter of the law.
- ur-whale 8y ago
  IANAL, but the little insight I have had over the years in the US legal system tells me the spirit of the law is rather rarely the heart of the discussion.
stcredzero 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. Many YouTubers and many Twitter users would say more conservative things, but Google and Twitter actively discourage and ban users in a way which is pointedly biased. Some of those so targeted deserve such treatment. However, not all of them do. Many of them are simply in ideological disagreement. It's a dilemma. If monopolies and near-monopolies are allowed to use corporate power to police speech, then this is allowed in the letter of the law, but it stinks to high heaven as far as the spirit of free speech goes. On the other hand, the government shouldn't be in the business of policing speech. The way out of this dilemma is to break up near-monopoly power where it exists. Right now, there really isn't a good alternative to YouTube, and this near monopoly power lets them effectively police speech across the entirety of a certain kind of widespread culturally relevant media: That of personal video commentary.
- tbabb 8y ago
  There is a big philosophical and legal difference between a population of companies each executing editorial/moderating power over content published on their own platforms and a central government doing the same thing over arbitrary content on arbitrary platforms. Who is doing the editing is extremely important. If a newspaper declines to publish a white supremacist screed in their op-ed column, that is not censorship. The screeching racist can always try and publish somewhere else, or publish themselves (online or in print), or yell in the streets. But if the government intervenes and tries to force/prevent any of those things from happening, that's censorship and it's unconstitutional. Completely different ballgame. It drives me up the wall that people think those cases are "equivalent".
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    Not the right word I think. Of course it censorship Its just not government censorship, and thus not a protected mode of free speech. Not equivalent of course, but still censorship all the same. Free speech is an American value, not just a few words in the Constitution. I'm sympathetic when folks object to private censors. As an American, I'm offended as well.

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]