5 ms·

"to discuss concerns that the search engine giant is biased against conservatives" ffs.

kozikow 8y ago
Isn't it? It's hard to interpret https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google-leaderships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-googl... otherwise.
- randomposter44 8y ago
  I dare him to watch the entire video and say there's not a built in bias especially when they start talking about changing their search engine AI to give people "the correct information"
- someonelse17 8y ago
  The politics of private citizens are their own business and explicitly not the government's. Furthermore even if that had any bearing on their search results whatever google presents on their own damn website is also none of the government's business.
  - simula67 8y ago
    It is if Google wants DMCA safe harbour protections
    - someonelse17 8y ago
      I'm not sure what's behind the recent prevalence to this theory but that is false. Also we should all want section 230 protection it's what preserves free speech online and the principle on which the whole web economy is built.
      - simula67 8y ago
        I don't like the idea that Google or any other entity can control how I think by presenting only one side of a story when the other side may have a reasonable objection, because it does not fit the politics of the operators of a platform. This is within the spirit of free speech. I think it fair to say that if Google wants to be a publisher, they should be held accountable to the content they publish. If they want to be a neutral platform, they should not favor any particular viewpoint
        someonelse17 8y ago
        What you want and what the law allows are different things, also just don't let any entity control how you think. As for 'being held accountable' as publisher, I'm sure you're aware of many publishers that favor one side or one "viewpoint" in fact it's most of them, and they aren't being held accountable for that because we live in a free country.
        jimbobimbo 8y ago
        They (publishers) actually are held accountable for the stuff they publish (e.g., publishing copyrighted material w/o permission will land you in the courtroom). This is why FB/Twitter/YouTube do not want to be publishers. However, because of their approach to moderation, they could wander in those waters.
        someonelse17 8y ago
        They're not held legally accountable for political views. The copyright stuff applies to everyone already.
        jimbobimbo 8y ago
        Not political views, but slander/libel - publishers are liable.
  - beaner 8y ago
    It's funny to hear someone only ever make this argument when what is being censored is conservative. If it were the opposite way, and they were blocking results on, say, the travel ban, or competing startups, people would be up in arms.
    - someonelse17 8y ago
      I don't know about the prevalence of other opinions but what I'm suggesting (and there are many legal precedents to support this) is that the first amendment shields them from this nonsense as well as any antitrust allegations and complains about how some entitles think they should be featured in their results.
- Aunche 8y ago
  Just because a company's leadership dislikes Trump doesn't mean they'll ruin the integrity of their product.
  - dx87 8y ago
    Maybe not intentionally, but as much as SV companies like to talk about unconsious biases causing discrimination, it never gets applied to supposedly neutral companies like Google that are currently being sued for how they discriminate against conservatives and white males. If their internal culture is constantly promoting liberal political ideals, would it really suprise you if the developers subconsciously create their products in a way that suppresses ideas they don't agree with? The same thing happened with Twitter where they were preventing only Republican Congress people from showing up on the news feed. They claimed to be neutral, yet somehow managed to implement an algorithm that affected 0 Democratic Congress people and a couple dozen Republican Congress people. Hopefully "Oops, it was the algorithm discriminating, not us" goes away as an excuse people accept.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      If you've got proof that they're actually discriminating against conservatives for conservative opinions, and not for expressing bigotry, then I'd like to see it. Cause just about every one of these cases that I've seen is someone claiming that they're expressing "conservative" opinions, when in reality they're expressing anti-LGBT equality or anti-women views. I'm not seeing anyone get fired over their opinions on the capital gains tax, for example.
      - antimatter 8y ago
        The definition of bigotry has tilted so far to the radical left that expressing simple, widely expected scientific findings get you labeled as a bigot/racist/sexist/alt-right/etc. The issue is not that they are discriminating against just conservative policy or thought. It is that any and all disagreement with radical leftist ideology is considered some form of hate speech in need of censorship.
- snowwrestler 8y ago
  I know a lot of conservatives who were also dismayed at Trump's election. Trump doesn't stand for, or enjoy the support of, all conservatives. In fact quite a few of his policies and actions directly contravene long-held conservative principles, like free trade and staying out of internal business decisions.

Isn't it? It's hard to interpret https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google-leaderships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-googl... otherwise.

randomposter44 8y ago
I dare him to watch the entire video and say there's not a built in bias especially when they start talking about changing their search engine AI to give people "the correct information"
someonelse17 8y ago
The politics of private citizens are their own business and explicitly not the government's. Furthermore even if that had any bearing on their search results whatever google presents on their own damn website is also none of the government's business.
- simula67 8y ago
  It is if Google wants DMCA safe harbour protections
  - someonelse17 8y ago
    I'm not sure what's behind the recent prevalence to this theory but that is false. Also we should all want section 230 protection it's what preserves free speech online and the principle on which the whole web economy is built.
    - simula67 8y ago
      I don't like the idea that Google or any other entity can control how I think by presenting only one side of a story when the other side may have a reasonable objection, because it does not fit the politics of the operators of a platform. This is within the spirit of free speech. I think it fair to say that if Google wants to be a publisher, they should be held accountable to the content they publish. If they want to be a neutral platform, they should not favor any particular viewpoint
      - someonelse17 8y ago
        What you want and what the law allows are different things, also just don't let any entity control how you think. As for 'being held accountable' as publisher, I'm sure you're aware of many publishers that favor one side or one "viewpoint" in fact it's most of them, and they aren't being held accountable for that because we live in a free country.
        jimbobimbo 8y ago
        They (publishers) actually are held accountable for the stuff they publish (e.g., publishing copyrighted material w/o permission will land you in the courtroom). This is why FB/Twitter/YouTube do not want to be publishers. However, because of their approach to moderation, they could wander in those waters.
        someonelse17 8y ago
        They're not held legally accountable for political views. The copyright stuff applies to everyone already.
        jimbobimbo 8y ago
        Not political views, but slander/libel - publishers are liable.
- beaner 8y ago
  It's funny to hear someone only ever make this argument when what is being censored is conservative. If it were the opposite way, and they were blocking results on, say, the travel ban, or competing startups, people would be up in arms.
  - someonelse17 8y ago
    I don't know about the prevalence of other opinions but what I'm suggesting (and there are many legal precedents to support this) is that the first amendment shields them from this nonsense as well as any antitrust allegations and complains about how some entitles think they should be featured in their results.
Aunche 8y ago
Just because a company's leadership dislikes Trump doesn't mean they'll ruin the integrity of their product.
- dx87 8y ago
  Maybe not intentionally, but as much as SV companies like to talk about unconsious biases causing discrimination, it never gets applied to supposedly neutral companies like Google that are currently being sued for how they discriminate against conservatives and white males. If their internal culture is constantly promoting liberal political ideals, would it really suprise you if the developers subconsciously create their products in a way that suppresses ideas they don't agree with? The same thing happened with Twitter where they were preventing only Republican Congress people from showing up on the news feed. They claimed to be neutral, yet somehow managed to implement an algorithm that affected 0 Democratic Congress people and a couple dozen Republican Congress people. Hopefully "Oops, it was the algorithm discriminating, not us" goes away as an excuse people accept.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    If you've got proof that they're actually discriminating against conservatives for conservative opinions, and not for expressing bigotry, then I'd like to see it. Cause just about every one of these cases that I've seen is someone claiming that they're expressing "conservative" opinions, when in reality they're expressing anti-LGBT equality or anti-women views. I'm not seeing anyone get fired over their opinions on the capital gains tax, for example.
    - antimatter 8y ago
      The definition of bigotry has tilted so far to the radical left that expressing simple, widely expected scientific findings get you labeled as a bigot/racist/sexist/alt-right/etc. The issue is not that they are discriminating against just conservative policy or thought. It is that any and all disagreement with radical leftist ideology is considered some form of hate speech in need of censorship.
snowwrestler 8y ago
I know a lot of conservatives who were also dismayed at Trump's election. Trump doesn't stand for, or enjoy the support of, all conservatives. In fact quite a few of his policies and actions directly contravene long-held conservative principles, like free trade and staying out of internal business decisions.