13 ms·

A Google whistleblower today released internal documents and helped Project Veritas obtain camera footage: > Google Exec Says Don’t Break Us Up: “smaller compa

A Google whistleblower today released internal documents and helped Project Veritas obtain camera footage: > Google Exec Says Don’t Break Us Up: “smaller companies don’t have the resources” to “prevent next Trump situation” If a single company believes they have the informational monopoly needed to control national politics, isn't that an admission of anti-trust liability? https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/24/insider-blows-whistle-exec-reveals-google-plan-to-prevent-trump-situation-in-2020-on-hidden-cam/ https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/24/insider-blows-whis...

jowday 7y ago
I wouldn't believe anything coming out of Project Veritas. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O'Keefe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O'Keefe
- grayed-down 7y ago
  Why? Do you think they're deep-faking their videos of people admitting to nefarious things?
  - awakeasleep 7y ago
    They're professional trolls that attempt to lead people on and misquote/misrepresent everything their enemies do- to the point where they sacrifice the achievement of conservative goals in favor of short term outrage.
    - rijoja 7y ago
      In this particular case was there a misquote?
      - V-eHGsd_ 7y ago
        according to the executive in question, yes. https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-monday-to-go-e92771c7aa82 https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-mo... > Project Veritas has edited the video to make it seem that I am a powerful executive who was confirming that Google is working to alter the 2020 election. On both counts, this is absolute, unadulterated nonsense, of course. In a casual restaurant setting, I was explaining how Google’s Trust and Safety team (a team I used to work on) is working to help prevent the types of online foreign interference that happened in 2016. Google has been very public about the work that our teams have done since 2016 on this, so it’s hardly a revelation.
        CapricornNoble 7y ago
        To expand on this, check out some of comments that have been purged by Medium, many of which are pretty mild: https://cloverchronicle.com/2019/06/24/here-are-some-of-the-deleted-comments-from-jen-gennais-rebuttal-to-the-latest-project-veritas-video-expose/ https://cloverchronicle.com/2019/06/24/here-are-some-of-the-...
  - plorkyeran 7y ago
    They have a track record of splicing together videos to make it appear that people have admitted to nefarious things which they never actually said, yes.
    - castlecrasher2 7y ago
      I heard this defense when the PP-selling-baby-parts video came out and had to see for myself. On watching the unedited video, I came to the conclusion that the accusation that Project Veritas is fabricating or otherwise manipulating these videos is a complete lie.
      - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
        In that case, they tried to prod the PP representatives into joking, and then edited down those jokes to look like serious statements. The idea was to present a false image in which PP is making a fortune out of body parts, instead of the reality, which is that they will give fetuses for research, but receive nominal compensation for the cost of doing so.
        rijoja 7y ago
        mhm so they gave body parts and received money? Sounds a lot like selling to me.
        DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
        It costs them money to preserve fetuses for research. They're allowed to be reimbursed for that cost. The law allows them to do so. Maybe you don't like the idea of fetuses being used in medical research, but that's a different issue. If Project Veritas were to argue that fundamental point, then that would be honest. What they did, which was dishonest, was to try to present a false picture in which Planned Parenthood was somehow getting rich off of selling fetuses. As usual, there are honest and dishonest ways of trying to argue for political change. The former relies on accurately depicting what is going on and arguing against it, while the latter relies on lying about what is going on, because one believes that one's lies serve the greater good.
  - V-eHGsd_ 7y ago
    they have a well documented history of releasing selectively edited videos
    - sonnyblarney 7y ago
      Every investigative journo program selectively edits their interviews. If you see some 'behind the scenes' from 60 minutes, CBC, BBC ... it's all edited to elicit the 'prime moments' and often in the favour of the narrative they're trying to present. I suggest Vertias is definitely worse, I think they are seedy, I don't trust it outright, but there's unavoidably real material there. So - low journalistic standards, but sometimes access to key information.
      - V-eHGsd_ 7y ago
        the difference between 60 minutes editing and veritas (epic name, "truth", lol) is that 60 minutes doesn't edit a clip to the point of changing the apparent meaning of what's being said. That's exactly what veritas does.
        sonnyblarney 7y ago
        I'd disagree. The narrative in 60 minutes often decontextualizes information to the point of misrepresentation. It's a matter of thresholds.
        grayed-down 7y ago
        I'm sorry, but I have not perceived this to be the case at all. Are there any examples that stand out to you?
        V-eHGsd_ 7y ago
        I mean, there's no need to look further than this incident (but you're certainly welcome to if you'd like). https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-monday-to-go-e92771c7aa82 https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-mo... > Project Veritas has edited the video to make it seem that I am a powerful executive who was confirming that Google is working to alter the 2020 election. On both counts, this is absolute, unadulterated nonsense, of course. In a casual restaurant setting, I was explaining how Google’s Trust and Safety team (a team I used to work on) is working to help prevent the types of online foreign interference that happened in 2016. Google has been very public about the work that our teams have done since 2016 on this, so it’s hardly a revelation.
- Fellshard 7y ago
  As a general rule, give them a few days after the initial sensational posting to see if they post the full interviews in context. They like to stagger releases of footage.
  - V-eHGsd_ 7y ago
    as a general rule, this is because the "news cycle" moves on to the next story once the outrage over their selectively edited video has been spent.
    - drak0n1c 7y ago
      Is that out of the norm of how daily television news and late night shows present their content? The only difference I see is the Veritas muckrakers’ tactic of going undercover as a sympathetic listener.
      - dmix 7y ago
        Not really. Nightly political comedy shows are known for editing hour long interviews into 2-3min clips to purposefully make people look bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jim_Jefferies_Show#Avi_Yemini_interview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jim_Jefferies_Show#Avi_Yem... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odCQhAezB_Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odCQhAezB_Q During filming Jim Jefferies attempted to rile up a Jewish activist named Avi Yemini. Which included Jefferies "drawing Mohammed in front of Yemini on a small white board" and saying anti-semetic things (kippahs "look dumb"). Then edited the interview to make Yemini look like a fringe alt-right figure, typical of those who inspired the NZ shooter. Even though the Avi told Jefferies team he wished to have zero association with those people before and during the interview, correctly suspecting that might be their intention.
    - Fellshard 7y ago
      I think it's a lousy tactic, yes. I'd much rather they release it all up front. I'll do my part to promulgate the full footage should they release it.
- sonnyblarney 7y ago
  I think that goes a little too far. I don't trust them very much as an entity, I think they are kind of seedy and 'slant' their findings, no doubt. But there is materiality in their revelations. It's a 'noisy channel' so to speak, but there's 'materiality' in the noise.
- repolfx 7y ago
  Wiki states (about the ACORN incident, which I guess is what you mean) The videos were heavily edited. The sequence of some conversations was changed. Some workers seemed concerned for Giles, one advising her to get legal help. In two cities, ACORN workers called the police. But the most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context This seems to be about a (possibly over)aggressive sting operation. The current Veritas stuff isn't a sting, it's all leaks from insiders who are clearly very concerned about what's happening. I don't see how Veritas/O'Keefe could edit these things deceptively, as they'd only be provided with what the leaker wanted them to see anyway. Moreover the leakers are probably all Google shareholders or at least have no incentive to damage their own employer beyond taking the moral high ground. So - this seems unlikely to be an issue here. Especially as, just like before, the words being spoken are damning and very clear. It's hard to imagine what sort of context might mitigate them beyond something like "this particular executive isn't actually very important" ... but that context would have no real impact if it wasn't backed by actions, like firing. To put it bluntly, Veritas has a covert video of a Google exec who might or might not be senior, but who seems to at least be well informed. She says: "We're also training our algorithms, if 2016 happened again, would we have, would the outcome be different?" "People who voted for the current president do not agree with our definition of fairness" "Certainly on top of my old organisation, Trust and Safety, top of mind, they've been working on it since 2016, to make sure we're ready for 2020" They also have a screenshot of a document saying, "If a representation is factually accurate, can it still be algorithmic unfairness? Yes." and then goes on to say that an image query for CEOs shouldn't show primarily men because even though that's accurate, it might "reinforce harmful stereotypes". Stuff coming out of these leaks isn't really news though, in the sense that it aligns perfectly with all the other leaks that have been happening and also some of their research publications. So there's little reason to doubt anything here - it's all entirely consistent. It's incredibly sad how an organisation that was once so committed to simply giving people the most relevant and accurate answers has gone full blown Machiavelli; they've been utterly corrupted by internal social justice activists who share none of those original values. I worked there for many years and it's a crying shame what has happened there since 2016. It looks from the outside like they've collectively lost their minds. And taking a corporate position of systematically manipulating their own userbase at scale, in order to control elections, is not only stunningly dystopian but also stunningly bad strategy.
- writepub 7y ago
  We should really trust the openly left-leaning search monopoly on it's self certified neutrality - that's just common sense. If we start doubting the neutrality of our monopolies, how will they even gaslight us into submission?
Fellshard 7y ago
This is nothing new, given the statements made in the Google 'all-hands' immediately after the election, for which complete footage was leaked as well. Some leadership was less explicitly partisan, but one or two were more openly so, to the point that they were amenable to being more proactive in future elections.
- darkpuma 7y ago
  The problem is not so much that a corporation has political opinions (or rather that the executives have political opinions and don't keep work and politics separate.) None of that is particularly unusual. The problem in this case is this particular company believes they have enough power to decide the outcome of elections. Or more accurately, the problem is that they might be right.
  - Isamu 7y ago
    >believes they have enough power to decide the outcome of elections. Or more accurately, the problem is that they might be right. But if so, they already spectacularly failed to prevent a Trump election. Or maybe they failed to predict it, but aren’t they uniquely positioned to do so? How does this paint a picture of dangerous political influence?
    - Fellshard 7y ago
      They actively discussed taking more steps to prevent it, instead of relying on failed predictions to justify inaction. As for why they failed to predict it in the first place: worldview bubbles strongly affected perception. No need to really examine data on something you and everyone around you believes is an impossibility. That's all part and parcel of what that All-hands meeting discussed; I'd highly recommend finding it and listening to it.
      - threeseed 7y ago
        Do you have evidence of where Google has stated that they are trying to prevent a future Trump government ?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
briankelly 7y ago
Don't estimate the sheer amount of arrogance concentrated in that company.
root_axis 7y ago
Project veritas has repeatedly shown itself to be untrustworthy, but if the commentary they have appeared to capture in this case is accurate, it is a disgraceful embarrassment for google if not actually illegal. I am betting she'll be fired over this.
- calimac 7y ago
  The facts are clear. Smearing Veritas will not save google from being exposed committing an undeniable atrocity against our modern society. Even if you voted for Hillary you should be terrified! This is a RED LINE THERE MUST BE INDUSTRY CONSEQUENCES
- CobrastanJorji 7y ago
  "This machine designed solely to lie and mislead in order to drum up and target hatred and rash action cannot be trusted, on account of its history of doing nothing except lying and misleading. However, if this machine designed solely to lie and mislead others is telling the truth this time, that makes me very upset!"
  - colpabar 7y ago
    You should post this on reddit too; it'd get more upvotes. In all seriousness though, this isn't a helpful comment. The comment you're replying to makes it abundantly clear that Project Veritas should be taken with a yuge grain of salt. An explanation of your own position is a much better discussion that mocking the position with which you disagree.
    - CobrastanJorji 7y ago
      That's a fair criticism, thanks. That said, I don't think "taken with a grain of salt" takes it nearly far enough. Project Veritas is not an unreliable news source. It is a propaganda agency led by criminals. I don't know of a single completely true news story ever produced by them. Beginning an argument with the antecedent "If Project Veritas is telling the truth about this" brings us into the realm of fun and fancy. If someone said "If unicorns are real and produce large quantities of greenhouse gases, then man man may not be responsible for climate change," it'd be a reasonable logical statement, but it's still not useful in a serious discussion about anything.
gurumeditations 7y ago
James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas should never ever be trusted. They’ve been caught so many times now lying and spreading fake news that I have no doubt that you are intentionally spreading lies.
asabjorn 7y ago
It seems incredibly risky for the bottom line and unwise to make such politically risky moves against half the US people. The action seem to assume that the reigning silicon valley ideologies are 1) right and 2) will win. By assuming corporate and regional dominance will last through violating some peoples trust in favor of placating others desire for power, it is just a matter of time before you open up a weakness that someone elsewhere can exploit. Or as they said in Detroit: "People will still need cars". To which you can answer "Yes, but that doesn't matter if you loose your competitive edge"
- maehwasu 7y ago
  “Corporations” are useful abstractions, but leaky. Google exists as a collection of people, most of whom are shielded from the profit motive. It’s also not terribly controversial to note that, on average, Google employees don’t like that other half of the US people. The upshot: it’s not very hard for a corporation to end up doing things that are right or good for the members, but bad for the corporation’s survival.
  - asabjorn 7y ago
    Yes, but the trust and safety team that per the Veritas video enforce the political agenda unto the user base are departments and therefore there as part of normal operation. These are not vigilantes operating on their own.
vkou 7y ago
> If a single company believes they have the informational monopoly needed to control national politics, There are other ways to interpret this statement. You have, without context, chosen to interpret it in the least charitable way possible. For example, supposing that: 1. You believe that there was illegal foreign meddling with Facebook during the next election. [1] 2. Instead of one Facebook, there were many competing social networks. 3. They would adopt, with highly varying degrees of effort and success, institute compliance and controls to deal with #1. One may reasonably and intelligently postulate that in such a parallel universe, #1 would be a bigger problem then it will be in our next election. (Because, thanks to economies of scale, and only having to implement it once, Facebook might do a better, more consistent job of being compliant, then 15 tiny social networks would.) [1] I am of the opinion that that it is irrelevant, and that the whole bloody purpose of campaigning is to 'meddle' with public opinion, but that doesn't seem to be a popular position here. For some insane reason, we're convinced that foreign enemies of the American people should not campaign in our elections, but domestic ones should. Somehow, through some tortured interpretation of the First Amendment, one is protected speech, and the other isn't.
anth_anm 7y ago
> helped Project Veritas obtain camera footage: Project veritas is not a reliable source. They are extremely biased and routinely edit videos. Google runs a site that makes money off exposing kids to far-right beliefs.
booleandilemma 7y ago
Wow, I didn’t realize it was Google’s job to control national politics.
neonate 7y ago
The "Google Exec" responded here: https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-monday-to-go-e92771c7aa82 https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-mo....
- cycrutchfield 7y ago
  Surprise surprise, Project Veritas is full of shit once again.
lolwhatitis 7y ago
From elsewhere: > What matters is that the American people had better believe, almost to an individual, that the process was fair and there was no cheating. That falls not just on voting matters directly but on the attempts by the media, whether old or new, to skew results, to steer people and to play psychological games with them whether through some "AI" or via in-person interference. > You have weeks, maybe a couple of months, before the window slams shut on this opportunity. Beyond that point all you're doing is packing powder into a tinderbox with a lit fuse. > [Jen Gennai's admission] is flat-out, without question, the most-dangerous admission I've ever seen and a very high-risk predicate for outright dirty civil war within the next 18 months. It only takes 0.1% of the American Population to decide they'd had enough of this crap and are willing to spend their life. If that happens you suddenly have three hundred thousand people committed to destruction who are utterly convinced that they are staring down tyranny and are willing to do whatever they can to stop it. They will be uncoordinated, you have no way to know who they are before they act, and once they do you can only sentence someone to death for a murder once; the facts, whether you like it or not, is that all the rest are "free, and always will be."

jowday 7y ago

I wouldn't believe anything coming out of Project Veritas. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O'Keefe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O'Keefe

grayed-down 7y ago
Why? Do you think they're deep-faking their videos of people admitting to nefarious things?
- awakeasleep 7y ago
  They're professional trolls that attempt to lead people on and misquote/misrepresent everything their enemies do- to the point where they sacrifice the achievement of conservative goals in favor of short term outrage.
  - rijoja 7y ago
    In this particular case was there a misquote?
    - V-eHGsd_ 7y ago
      according to the executive in question, yes. https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-monday-to-go-e92771c7aa82 https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-mo... > Project Veritas has edited the video to make it seem that I am a powerful executive who was confirming that Google is working to alter the 2020 election. On both counts, this is absolute, unadulterated nonsense, of course. In a casual restaurant setting, I was explaining how Google’s Trust and Safety team (a team I used to work on) is working to help prevent the types of online foreign interference that happened in 2016. Google has been very public about the work that our teams have done since 2016 on this, so it’s hardly a revelation.
      - CapricornNoble 7y ago
        To expand on this, check out some of comments that have been purged by Medium, many of which are pretty mild: https://cloverchronicle.com/2019/06/24/here-are-some-of-the-deleted-comments-from-jen-gennais-rebuttal-to-the-latest-project-veritas-video-expose/ https://cloverchronicle.com/2019/06/24/here-are-some-of-the-...
- plorkyeran 7y ago
  They have a track record of splicing together videos to make it appear that people have admitted to nefarious things which they never actually said, yes.
  - castlecrasher2 7y ago
    I heard this defense when the PP-selling-baby-parts video came out and had to see for myself. On watching the unedited video, I came to the conclusion that the accusation that Project Veritas is fabricating or otherwise manipulating these videos is a complete lie.
    - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
      In that case, they tried to prod the PP representatives into joking, and then edited down those jokes to look like serious statements. The idea was to present a false image in which PP is making a fortune out of body parts, instead of the reality, which is that they will give fetuses for research, but receive nominal compensation for the cost of doing so.
      - rijoja 7y ago
        mhm so they gave body parts and received money? Sounds a lot like selling to me.
        DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
        It costs them money to preserve fetuses for research. They're allowed to be reimbursed for that cost. The law allows them to do so. Maybe you don't like the idea of fetuses being used in medical research, but that's a different issue. If Project Veritas were to argue that fundamental point, then that would be honest. What they did, which was dishonest, was to try to present a false picture in which Planned Parenthood was somehow getting rich off of selling fetuses. As usual, there are honest and dishonest ways of trying to argue for political change. The former relies on accurately depicting what is going on and arguing against it, while the latter relies on lying about what is going on, because one believes that one's lies serve the greater good.
- V-eHGsd_ 7y ago
  they have a well documented history of releasing selectively edited videos
  - sonnyblarney 7y ago
    Every investigative journo program selectively edits their interviews. If you see some 'behind the scenes' from 60 minutes, CBC, BBC ... it's all edited to elicit the 'prime moments' and often in the favour of the narrative they're trying to present. I suggest Vertias is definitely worse, I think they are seedy, I don't trust it outright, but there's unavoidably real material there. So - low journalistic standards, but sometimes access to key information.
    - V-eHGsd_ 7y ago
      the difference between 60 minutes editing and veritas (epic name, "truth", lol) is that 60 minutes doesn't edit a clip to the point of changing the apparent meaning of what's being said. That's exactly what veritas does.
      - sonnyblarney 7y ago
        I'd disagree. The narrative in 60 minutes often decontextualizes information to the point of misrepresentation. It's a matter of thresholds.
      - grayed-down 7y ago
        I'm sorry, but I have not perceived this to be the case at all. Are there any examples that stand out to you?
        V-eHGsd_ 7y ago
        I mean, there's no need to look further than this incident (but you're certainly welcome to if you'd like). https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-monday-to-go-e92771c7aa82 https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-mo... > Project Veritas has edited the video to make it seem that I am a powerful executive who was confirming that Google is working to alter the 2020 election. On both counts, this is absolute, unadulterated nonsense, of course. In a casual restaurant setting, I was explaining how Google’s Trust and Safety team (a team I used to work on) is working to help prevent the types of online foreign interference that happened in 2016. Google has been very public about the work that our teams have done since 2016 on this, so it’s hardly a revelation.
Fellshard 7y ago
As a general rule, give them a few days after the initial sensational posting to see if they post the full interviews in context. They like to stagger releases of footage.
- V-eHGsd_ 7y ago
  as a general rule, this is because the "news cycle" moves on to the next story once the outrage over their selectively edited video has been spent.
  - drak0n1c 7y ago
    Is that out of the norm of how daily television news and late night shows present their content? The only difference I see is the Veritas muckrakers’ tactic of going undercover as a sympathetic listener.
    - dmix 7y ago
      Not really. Nightly political comedy shows are known for editing hour long interviews into 2-3min clips to purposefully make people look bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jim_Jefferies_Show#Avi_Yemini_interview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jim_Jefferies_Show#Avi_Yem... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odCQhAezB_Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odCQhAezB_Q During filming Jim Jefferies attempted to rile up a Jewish activist named Avi Yemini. Which included Jefferies "drawing Mohammed in front of Yemini on a small white board" and saying anti-semetic things (kippahs "look dumb"). Then edited the interview to make Yemini look like a fringe alt-right figure, typical of those who inspired the NZ shooter. Even though the Avi told Jefferies team he wished to have zero association with those people before and during the interview, correctly suspecting that might be their intention.
  - Fellshard 7y ago
    I think it's a lousy tactic, yes. I'd much rather they release it all up front. I'll do my part to promulgate the full footage should they release it.
sonnyblarney 7y ago
I think that goes a little too far. I don't trust them very much as an entity, I think they are kind of seedy and 'slant' their findings, no doubt. But there is materiality in their revelations. It's a 'noisy channel' so to speak, but there's 'materiality' in the noise.
repolfx 7y ago
Wiki states (about the ACORN incident, which I guess is what you mean) The videos were heavily edited. The sequence of some conversations was changed. Some workers seemed concerned for Giles, one advising her to get legal help. In two cities, ACORN workers called the police. But the most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context This seems to be about a (possibly over)aggressive sting operation. The current Veritas stuff isn't a sting, it's all leaks from insiders who are clearly very concerned about what's happening. I don't see how Veritas/O'Keefe could edit these things deceptively, as they'd only be provided with what the leaker wanted them to see anyway. Moreover the leakers are probably all Google shareholders or at least have no incentive to damage their own employer beyond taking the moral high ground. So - this seems unlikely to be an issue here. Especially as, just like before, the words being spoken are damning and very clear. It's hard to imagine what sort of context might mitigate them beyond something like "this particular executive isn't actually very important" ... but that context would have no real impact if it wasn't backed by actions, like firing. To put it bluntly, Veritas has a covert video of a Google exec who might or might not be senior, but who seems to at least be well informed. She says: "We're also training our algorithms, if 2016 happened again, would we have, would the outcome be different?" "People who voted for the current president do not agree with our definition of fairness" "Certainly on top of my old organisation, Trust and Safety, top of mind, they've been working on it since 2016, to make sure we're ready for 2020" They also have a screenshot of a document saying, "If a representation is factually accurate, can it still be algorithmic unfairness? Yes." and then goes on to say that an image query for CEOs shouldn't show primarily men because even though that's accurate, it might "reinforce harmful stereotypes". Stuff coming out of these leaks isn't really news though, in the sense that it aligns perfectly with all the other leaks that have been happening and also some of their research publications. So there's little reason to doubt anything here - it's all entirely consistent. It's incredibly sad how an organisation that was once so committed to simply giving people the most relevant and accurate answers has gone full blown Machiavelli; they've been utterly corrupted by internal social justice activists who share none of those original values. I worked there for many years and it's a crying shame what has happened there since 2016. It looks from the outside like they've collectively lost their minds. And taking a corporate position of systematically manipulating their own userbase at scale, in order to control elections, is not only stunningly dystopian but also stunningly bad strategy.
writepub 7y ago
We should really trust the openly left-leaning search monopoly on it's self certified neutrality - that's just common sense. If we start doubting the neutrality of our monopolies, how will they even gaslight us into submission?

Fellshard 7y ago

This is nothing new, given the statements made in the Google 'all-hands' immediately after the election, for which complete footage was leaked as well. Some leadership was less explicitly partisan, but one or two were more openly so, to the point that they were amenable to being more proactive in future elections.

darkpuma 7y ago
The problem is not so much that a corporation has political opinions (or rather that the executives have political opinions and don't keep work and politics separate.) None of that is particularly unusual. The problem in this case is this particular company believes they have enough power to decide the outcome of elections. Or more accurately, the problem is that they might be right.
- Isamu 7y ago
  >believes they have enough power to decide the outcome of elections. Or more accurately, the problem is that they might be right. But if so, they already spectacularly failed to prevent a Trump election. Or maybe they failed to predict it, but aren’t they uniquely positioned to do so? How does this paint a picture of dangerous political influence?
  - Fellshard 7y ago
    They actively discussed taking more steps to prevent it, instead of relying on failed predictions to justify inaction. As for why they failed to predict it in the first place: worldview bubbles strongly affected perception. No need to really examine data on something you and everyone around you believes is an impossibility. That's all part and parcel of what that All-hands meeting discussed; I'd highly recommend finding it and listening to it.
    - threeseed 7y ago
      Do you have evidence of where Google has stated that they are trying to prevent a future Trump government ?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

briankelly 7y ago

Don't estimate the sheer amount of arrogance concentrated in that company.

root_axis 7y ago

Project veritas has repeatedly shown itself to be untrustworthy, but if the commentary they have appeared to capture in this case is accurate, it is a disgraceful embarrassment for google if not actually illegal. I am betting she'll be fired over this.

calimac 7y ago
The facts are clear. Smearing Veritas will not save google from being exposed committing an undeniable atrocity against our modern society. Even if you voted for Hillary you should be terrified! This is a RED LINE THERE MUST BE INDUSTRY CONSEQUENCES
CobrastanJorji 7y ago
"This machine designed solely to lie and mislead in order to drum up and target hatred and rash action cannot be trusted, on account of its history of doing nothing except lying and misleading. However, if this machine designed solely to lie and mislead others is telling the truth this time, that makes me very upset!"
- colpabar 7y ago
  You should post this on reddit too; it'd get more upvotes. In all seriousness though, this isn't a helpful comment. The comment you're replying to makes it abundantly clear that Project Veritas should be taken with a yuge grain of salt. An explanation of your own position is a much better discussion that mocking the position with which you disagree.
  - CobrastanJorji 7y ago
    That's a fair criticism, thanks. That said, I don't think "taken with a grain of salt" takes it nearly far enough. Project Veritas is not an unreliable news source. It is a propaganda agency led by criminals. I don't know of a single completely true news story ever produced by them. Beginning an argument with the antecedent "If Project Veritas is telling the truth about this" brings us into the realm of fun and fancy. If someone said "If unicorns are real and produce large quantities of greenhouse gases, then man man may not be responsible for climate change," it'd be a reasonable logical statement, but it's still not useful in a serious discussion about anything.

gurumeditations 7y ago

James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas should never ever be trusted. They’ve been caught so many times now lying and spreading fake news that I have no doubt that you are intentionally spreading lies.

asabjorn 7y ago

It seems incredibly risky for the bottom line and unwise to make such politically risky moves against half the US people. The action seem to assume that the reigning silicon valley ideologies are 1) right and 2) will win. By assuming corporate and regional dominance will last through violating some peoples trust in favor of placating others desire for power, it is just a matter of time before you open up a weakness that someone elsewhere can exploit. Or as they said in Detroit: "People will still need cars". To which you can answer "Yes, but that doesn't matter if you loose your competitive edge"

maehwasu 7y ago
“Corporations” are useful abstractions, but leaky. Google exists as a collection of people, most of whom are shielded from the profit motive. It’s also not terribly controversial to note that, on average, Google employees don’t like that other half of the US people. The upshot: it’s not very hard for a corporation to end up doing things that are right or good for the members, but bad for the corporation’s survival.
- asabjorn 7y ago
  Yes, but the trust and safety team that per the Veritas video enforce the political agenda unto the user base are departments and therefore there as part of normal operation. These are not vigilantes operating on their own.

vkou 7y ago

> If a single company believes they have the informational monopoly needed to control national politics, There are other ways to interpret this statement. You have, without context, chosen to interpret it in the least charitable way possible. For example, supposing that: 1. You believe that there was illegal foreign meddling with Facebook during the next election. [1] 2. Instead of one Facebook, there were many competing social networks. 3. They would adopt, with highly varying degrees of effort and success, institute compliance and controls to deal with #1. One may reasonably and intelligently postulate that in such a parallel universe, #1 would be a bigger problem then it will be in our next election. (Because, thanks to economies of scale, and only having to implement it once, Facebook might do a better, more consistent job of being compliant, then 15 tiny social networks would.) [1] I am of the opinion that that it is irrelevant, and that the whole bloody purpose of campaigning is to 'meddle' with public opinion, but that doesn't seem to be a popular position here. For some insane reason, we're convinced that foreign enemies of the American people should not campaign in our elections, but domestic ones should. Somehow, through some tortured interpretation of the First Amendment, one is protected speech, and the other isn't.

anth_anm 7y ago

> helped Project Veritas obtain camera footage: Project veritas is not a reliable source. They are extremely biased and routinely edit videos. Google runs a site that makes money off exposing kids to far-right beliefs.

booleandilemma 7y ago

Wow, I didn’t realize it was Google’s job to control national politics.

neonate 7y ago

The "Google Exec" responded here: https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-monday-to-go-e92771c7aa82 https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-mo....

cycrutchfield 7y ago
Surprise surprise, Project Veritas is full of shit once again.

lolwhatitis 7y ago

From elsewhere: > What matters is that the American people had better believe, almost to an individual, that the process was fair and there was no cheating. That falls not just on voting matters directly but on the attempts by the media, whether old or new, to skew results, to steer people and to play psychological games with them whether through some "AI" or via in-person interference. > You have weeks, maybe a couple of months, before the window slams shut on this opportunity. Beyond that point all you're doing is packing powder into a tinderbox with a lit fuse. > [Jen Gennai's admission] is flat-out, without question, the most-dangerous admission I've ever seen and a very high-risk predicate for outright dirty civil war within the next 18 months. It only takes 0.1% of the American Population to decide they'd had enough of this crap and are willing to spend their life. If that happens you suddenly have three hundred thousand people committed to destruction who are utterly convinced that they are staring down tyranny and are willing to do whatever they can to stop it. They will be uncoordinated, you have no way to know who they are before they act, and once they do you can only sentence someone to death for a murder once; the facts, whether you like it or not, is that all the rest are "free, and always will be."