18 ms·

Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

192 points by dvt 7y ago

suyash 7y ago
I hope so wins the lawsuit!
- vernie 7y ago
  Yea it almost certainly tanked her campaign.
  - m463 7y ago
    On the contrary, I believe the publicity will call lots of attention to her.
higggugcg 7y ago
Silence from the technocrats. Pretty much everyone that comments on HN is basically a part of the extremely corrupt democratic party. Basically HN is full of warmongering deepstaters or those who work and/or directly support as much.
DiseasedBadger 7y ago
The microphone cutting has been going on since long before the debate, kiddo. Welcome to the private-government deplatforming dystopia.
- not_a_cop75 7y ago
  It's nice to know big business keeps on telling the voters who to elect.
  - gesman 7y ago
    Google votes with their algorithms.
  - metalchianti 7y ago
    But life becomes much easier when someone/something else decides what you should think!
  - lukifer 7y ago
    Because our voting systems are nearly all First Past The Post, voters are forced to vote strategically, based on who they think others are also likely to vote for (and their recursive assessment of those voters' assessments). In game theory, this is known as a Schelling focus[0], and it makes it difficult to reveal voters' true preferences for leaders and policies (as opposed to other systems like Ranked-Choice[1] or Approval). This is often theorized as one reason for the effectiveness of broadcast advertising: in addition to individual influence, one becomes socially influenced by the awareness that millions of others have seen the same advertisement at the same time, and thus can be relied on to use brands and products as signals for identity or group membership. So in this sense, even as the power of broadcast is waning in favor of social networking, broadcast media (such as televised debates) still have tremendous power in powerfully nudging the recursive algorithm: even if I know for a fact that a TV interviewer is cynically kneecapping Gabbard/Yang/whoever, the mere fact that I know so many others are seeing it will influence my assessment of their odds, and discourage me from "throwing my vote away", knowing other viewers are likely reaching the same conclusion. Incidentally, as opposed as the MSM was to Trump during primaries, I think he still leveraged this phenomenon in his favor; partially by being so shocking that he gained regular airtime, thus seeming more prominent and significant, but most especially through his IRL rallies, which acted as a powerful signal of popularity, inline with the common knowledge model described in "Rational Ritual"[2]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) [1] https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV) https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV) [2] https://press.princeton.edu/titles/9998.html https://press.princeton.edu/titles/9998.html
mistermann 7y ago
Can anyone think of any likely and plausible explanations for what went wrong on Google's end?
- djrogers 7y ago
  Yes - it's even outlined in the articles. A sudden increase in spending triggered a fraud detection algorithm, and the account was re-established before the next morning when a human verified there was no fraud.
ziddoap 7y ago
I'm not a proponent of censorship by any means, but I'm starting to get serious fatigue of these types of stories. Especially in the case of politicians, I have no sympathy when Google or Facebook or Twitter decides to terminate or otherwise take action on an account. Rally behind them until it becomes inconvenient, then launch a suit! What hypocrisy. We got here because of our weird fervor for capitalism, holding it up as some pinnacle of society. Yet when a company successfully exploits all that capitalism has to offer, it's screams and outrage! I admit, I am not fully up to speed on this story. But here's the kicker - after reading this article, I still have no idea what the story is. This is just boilerplate "rally against the big tech companies!" without any rhyme or reason - at least no reason mentioned in the article. >Please join Tulsi in her fight for our core American values of free speech and fair elections. Free speech flows two ways, which is often forgotten. Corporate entities are entitled to free speech as well, for the better or for worse. They are also entitled to remove anyone from their platform or limit the services they offer someone. This is baked into the concept of capitalism. The whole legal system is built on the premise that corporations are awarded autonomy / person-hood. The whole rallying against the corporations which capitalism enabled, in the name of capitalism and free speech.. I just don't understand it. We wanted capitalism. We got it. Stop begging for governments to intervene in private companies, while praising capitalism like some god. Pick a path. And then, apparently, ask for some donations.
- not_a_cop75 7y ago
  Let companies rule the world! Let them put whatever they want in our meats! Remember the term "mystery meat"? That was from poor quality controls in corporate with zero government oversight.
  - ziddoap 7y ago
    I'm not saying that this is the way it should be. I'm just pointing out that we fought for capitalism in it's truest form, and then got angry when companies exploited it. (And still praise it when it suits us)
    - 7y ago
maximente 7y ago
stoked to see this on multiple fronts: - someone with a vested interest + some modicum of power can hold .google's feet to the fire on this issue and will likely hammer the point home even post-settlement or whatever (remember when they out of the blue suspended my ad account?...) - Tulsi maybe gets more exposure as a candidate, leading people to her anti-war ideals, which may influence other candidates admittedly haven't heard google's side but there's precedent here for them committing unwarranted screw ups. of course, if the campaign did do something naughty that'd be a pretty big self inflicted wound.
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  Better that they hash the issue out in the primaries than in the general.
derp_dee_derp 7y ago
Both sides, Democrat and Republican, are now anti big tech. Love it or Hate it, when you piss off the most powerful governing body on the planet you're in for a bad time. My question is more timeframe: Google obviously won't be broken up tomorrow, but probably earlier than a decade from now. I guess the timeframe depends on who wins the next presidential election?
- not_a_cop75 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure that google can just be friends with one of 300 other governments and survive.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- maximente 7y ago
  reads like a great parable to be written afterwards: the algorithms, successful 99.8% of the time, misfired on a US presidential candidate, who went on to lead the eventually successful efforts to break up Google, neutering its algorithms' effects upon the world. the algorithms giveth; the algorithms taketh away
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- tenpies 7y ago
  The worst part is I think both sides have at least some merit for their suspicion. Obviously the Republicans seem to be more openly punished and the balance tipped against them, but the Democrats also suffer occasionally, especially if they are not the right Democrat. Google might be treading dangerously close to becoming persona non-grata for 50% of the population, regardless of who wins. There is also a cautionary tale there that perhaps the whole idea of "don't talk politics at work" was not some tool from The Man to keep workers subdued, but rather a hard-earned lesson to keep companies from imploding when employers think they've been hired to be activists. Surprise, turns out not everything has to be political and your personal identity doesn't have to bleed over to your professional life.
slg 7y ago
It might be more appropriate to link to a indepdent article about this rather than Gabbard's site. Here is one from The Verge [1]. It sounds like Google's fraud/spam algorithms automatically triggered the suspension (maybe due to a large increase in spend meant to build on Gabbard's post debate momentum). The account was unlocked after human intervention. Gabbard insinuates the initial suspension was politically motivated, which seems hard to believe. But either way, it highlights a long standing problem with Google giving algorithms so much power. It is also potentially more damaging for the all of us who aren't presidential candidates and can't get our accounts quickly restored if we mistakenly anger some unknown Google algorithm. [1] - https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/25/8930373/google-tulsi-gabbard-democratic-candidate-lawsuit-ad-search-ban-political-bias-debates https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/25/8930373/google-tulsi-gabb...
- dvt 7y ago
  I was considering linking the NYT article[1] but consciously decided against it. I don't even particularly support Tulsi Gabbard, but I'd rather go to the horse's mouth, so to speak, and let people make up their own minds. Also, her blog has no intrusive ads or paywalls. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/technology/tulsi-gabbard-sues-google.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/technology/tulsi-gabbard-...
  - slg 7y ago
    That is a fair viewpoint. I am just a little cautious of only hearing one side of a lawsuit, especially when that side is a political campaign and therefore is very concerned with spin. Gabbard's account has a lot of political grandstanding in it that you wouldn't find in a independent article.
- cwkoss 7y ago
  > Gabbard insinuates the initial suspension was politically motivated The subtext I'm reading is that the "major" political accounts probably have specific flags set by Google internally to prevent automated shut-offs like this. If Google is not applying these whitelist flags to all candidates in a fair and systematic fashion, it would effectively be utilizing their corporate resources to disproportionately benefit certain candidates at the expense of others.
gringoDan 7y ago
NYT article that has more information: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/technology/tulsi-gabbard-sues-google.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/technology/tulsi-gabbard-... The account was inactive from 9:30pm on June 27th - 3:30am on June 28th. This doesn't seem like an act of malice from Google, but rather a verification check. Some excerpts: > Tulsi Now Inc., the campaign committee for Ms. Gabbard, said Google suspended the campaign’s advertising account for six hours on June 27 and June 28, obstructing its ability to raise money and spread her message to potential voters. > After the first Democratic debate, Ms. Gabbard was briefly the most searched-for candidate on Google. Her campaign wanted to capitalize on the attention she was receiving by buying ads that would have placed its website at the top of search results for her name. > The lawsuit also said the Gabbard campaign believed its emails were being placed in spam folders on Gmail at “a disproportionately high rate” when compared with emails from other Democratic candidates.
- Causality1 7y ago
  Now now, we can't let facts get in the way of the victimhood Olympics.
  - dang 7y ago
    Please don't post unsubstantive comments, call names, or take threads further into flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dang 7y ago
  Changed to that now. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20528797 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20528797.
  - danielvinson 7y ago
    In general, I think people would appreciate the link not being to a paywall.
    - 7y ago
rory096 7y ago
Since OP has no actual information, some excerpts from the NYT story: >Tulsi Now Inc., the campaign committee for Ms. Gabbard, said Google suspended the campaign’s advertising account for six hours on June 27 and June 28, obstructing its ability to raise money and spread her message to potential voters. >The lawsuit also said the Gabbard campaign believed its emails were being placed in spam folders on Gmail at “a disproportionately high rate” when compared with emails from other Democratic candidates. >Google has automated systems that flag unusual activity on advertiser accounts — including large spending changes — to prevent fraud, said Jose Castaneda, a spokesman for the company. >“In this case, our system triggered a suspension and the account was reinstated shortly thereafter,” he said. “We are proud to offer ad products that help campaigns connect directly with voters, and we do so without bias toward any party or political ideology.” >Gabbard campaign workers sent an email to a Google representative on June 27 at 9:30 p.m. once they realized the account had been suspended. In emails reviewed by The New York Times, the campaign sent Google a screenshot of a notice of suspension for “problems with billing information or violations of our advertising policies.” >The account was reactivated at 3:30 a.m. on June 28. In the email announcing that it had reinstated the account, Google wrote that the company temporarily suspended the campaign’s account to verify billing information and policy compliance, but offered no other explanation for what had happened. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/technology/tulsi-gabbard-sues-google.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/technology/tulsi-gabbard-...
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  > but offered no other explanation for what had happened. And yeah she should be suing to force discovery.
- delfinom 7y ago
  >The lawsuit also said the Gabbard campaign believed its emails were being placed in spam folders on Gmail at “a disproportionately high rate” when compared with emails from other Democratic candidates. Or you know, more people spam foldered your junk mail and triggered the algorithim to learn and mark you more globally as spam. Shit, I spam folder anything that is unsolicited, any politicial party.
sct202 7y ago
I saw that Googles response was that "large spending changes" caused an automatic suspension. With all of Google's tech, they should just have that weird Google Assistant call the phone listed on the account to have the account owner verbally confirm the changes instead of flat out freezing it.
anm89 7y ago
This brings up the inherent absurdity of wanting tech infrastructure providers to sensor their platforms. When the mob decides that they don't like a thing then it's "why were they allowed a platform". Whereas when the mob wants access to a thing and then it's restricted it's "why were they allowed to capriciously control my access" It's an inherently unwinnable game. Tech companies who are essentially an information utility at this point controlling huge flows of content should not be made judge jury and executioner on what is acceptable speech. It's bizarre to me that people who on one hand seem to hate these companies also want to give them immense power and responsibility to restrict access to information. It's because they associate the idea of censorship with getting the specific thing they want censored and not with a broader world in which these companies hold this power. Not a huge fan of Joe Rogan but Naval Ravikant expresses this very lucidly on the podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNWN5ioF-9A&feature=youtu.be&t=592 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNWN5ioF-9A&feature=youtu.be...
- natalyarostova 7y ago
  This is why the corner solution of free speech as a cultural meme was started, which was a precursor to its formalization. The corner solution essentially 'solves' this issue by realizing partial censorship is a non-stable equilibrium.
- dv_dt 7y ago
  I feel like we've forgetton how to propose and discuss common standards that should apply in encouraging and enforcing public speech. It looks like a unwinnable game if there aren't standards - but our media and our politicians rarely ever couch discussion in those terms, only in individual conflict terms which makes it more difficult to pull a common direction out of the mass.
  - anm89 7y ago
    Yes this is a huge problem. These days everyone gets a say and the loudest voice wins but many people are simply not systematic thinkers. Their idea of a how a system should behave is whatever behavior gives them what they want now, regardless of what the final equilibrium of moving to that state would be.
writepub 7y ago
Of all the trending searches after the debate, Google's systems singling out Tulsi's account for flagging seems suspicious, and Google's robo-responses to press inquiries specious. I'm sure other candidates upped their spending, so let's have the ACTUAL numbers Google! Also, it's a little surprising to see parroted defenses of Google here - they operate behind an opaque cloak, designed from the ground up for plausible deniability on every single one of their actions. Their P.R. statements cannot be believed. Tulsi's criticisms do not seem unsubstantiated, and the fact she's suing a corp. with unlimited funding indicates her campaign believes they have some evidence of malice. Between the two, I'd give Tulsi the benefit of doubt, and wait for the discovery stage in this case
nameismypw 7y ago
> The lawsuit accuses Google of violating the First Amendment, among other offenses, and Gabbard is seeking $50 million plus assurances that Google will refrain from “censoring or restricting” the account. Isn't it common rhetoric that Google _can't_ violate the First Amendment, being a private company? They have the ability to arbitrarily close or censor any account they choose. Politicians don't get special treatment, especially while saying it's fair for Google to close accounts belonging to people whom they personally find objectionable.
vernie 7y ago
Tangentially related question: How much money will be spent by all these losing campaigns?
- icebraining 7y ago
  A few hundred million dollars: https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race
shadowmore 7y ago
On a first principles level, this highlights the core issue of bans/blocks/suspensions being handed out immediately rather than after a series of strike-based warning messages or something to that effect. YouTube creators come to mind as some of the most blatantly affected by this, i.e. when YouTube automatically demonetizes videos, losing the creator revenue from 75%+ of the video's viewers, and then remonetizes it after an appeal. At no point should any algorithm have the ability to block any account or perform any other such drastic measure (demonetization, etc.). It's just absurd.
neonate 7y ago
http://archive.is/AM6iY http://archive.is/AM6iY
abstract7 7y ago
Tulsi is the most prominent Democrat presidential candidate that the media often says has conservative views. She is also broadly considered anti-establishment. Are there any establishment Democrat candidates (e.g. Harvard and Yale Law faculty member and senior senator Warren) to date that have had their Google ad accounts suspended by an 'unbiased' algorithm?
- mistermann 7y ago
  This is the kind of evidence I'd want to see before going along with the "we know there's nothing to see here" crowd - if this outage is completely legitimate, I'd think Google should be able to produce a list of similar outages involving non-run-of-the-mill accounts - or, do they genuinely have no attribute that would provide their algorithm with a hint as to the "class" an account falls in?
rdtsc 7y ago
On one hand this might seem like Google is trying to hurt her. On the other hand, if there was anyone at Google who was actually rooting for her, and had any input or ability to suspend accounts, this could end up actually helping her, as it pits her against the "big tech" and would in the long term help her chances of winning the election. But, as they say, sometimes, the algorithms is just an algorithm, and it could be just a routine suspension and Gabbard's campaign saw an opportunity to profit (PR-wise) from it.
amriksohata 7y ago
Tulsi is one of the few candidates on either side that believes in servant leadership
AzzieElbab 7y ago
whoever coined the term "artificial stupidity" is/was a prophet
prpp0ndj 7y ago
Perhaps it’s a simple case of “Gmail users label her messages as spam more than other Dem candidates.” and Google is using that to train their filter. Social norms have never been decided in an entirely open and objective way. We’re free to speak. Not be heard. Tulsi isn’t owed an audience of Gmail users. Look at all these “but the free market!” type pols who got us to give everything up to corps getting bit. Suddenly investigations and regulations be coming! Not a peep when, you know, they started bulk collecting the general public’s phone calls and emails.
Syama 7y ago
Algorithm defense is a new Twinkie defense. On the first debate where so many candidates are buying google ads, for Google to have not planned for a spike in advertising and blaming it on the algorithm is just inexcusable. Either Google is very incompetent and the person in charge needs to be fired, or there is something else going on. Either incompetence or intentional their action did impact Tulsi Gabbard's post-debate moment and her fundraising ability and google is liable in election interference.
orcasauce 7y ago
How is this a violation of her "Freedom of speech"? Google is not the government. The Bill of Rights protects us from the government, not private enterprise. I feel I'm surely missing some key detail.
gundmc 7y ago
Google should just disallow political ads entirely. This is a no-win proposition. Being too lax leads to election meddling, trying to flag suspicious activity is censorship. You're just an easy punching bag. They've already stopped serving political ads in Canada, so there's precedent.
jayjay1010 7y ago
Would he resign if Google took a position in a non political debate but a scientific debate? http://linkaudit.co/blog/google-takes-side-in-controversial-vaccine-safety-debate/ http://linkaudit.co/blog/google-takes-side-in-controversial-...
Excel_Wizard 7y ago
In all likelihood, Gabbard and her campaign managers are perfectly aware that: 1. Google's automatic account suspension systems were doing exactly what they would do for any other account. 2. There was no intentional discrimination/meddling. A sudden spike of search traffic corresponding with a sudden influx of advertising spending is likely to trigger red flags for the system. 6 hours of downtime for these google ads did damage her campaign, but Gabbard, or anybody, is not entitled to 100% uptime for a service provided by a corporation, except to the degree that it violates a contract/ TOS. “Google’s discriminatory actions against my campaign are reflective of how dangerous their complete dominance over internet search is, and how the increasing dominance of big tech companies over our public discourse threatens our core American values,” Gabbard said in a statement. “This is a threat to free speech, fair elections and to our democracy, and I intend to fight back on behalf of all Americans.” Her statement quoted above make me like her less, and I don't feel like I'm a particularly pro-google guy.
- dimator 7y ago
  Not to mention, as a private company, Google could do whatever it wanted anyway, there is no first amendment protection. This lawsuit is probably going to get dismissed, so I have to treat it as a stunt to get some cheap headlines.
- ggm 7y ago
  I am not an american and know none of the players. However I do use google ads. What I see, is that in two independent google accounts, running campaigns on the same search terms and keyword triggers, there are times I can show my two accounts "compete" for the same mindshare. In any normal endeavour this is just how it works, but in politics, the consequences of a differential treatment of two candidates in the same space is not good for democracy. I don't know who I support, but a framework which accepts money for placement and then determines an asymmetric bias in placement irrespective of bid price, and then perturbs visibility of political ads, is going to be mis-understood and mis-represented as systemic bias by somebody. Its human nature to assume its human centric behaviour, not a heuristic breakdown. Hanlon's razor isn't always well applied.
- writepub 7y ago
Excel_Wizard 7y ago
In all likelihood, Gabbard and her campaign managers are perfectly aware that: 1. Google's automatic account suspension systems were doing exactly what they would do for any other account. 2. There was no intentional discrimination/meddling. A sudden spike of search traffic corresponding with a sudden influx of advertising spending is likely to trigger red flags for the system. 6 hours of downtime for these google ads did damage her campaign, but Gabbard, or anybody, is not entitled to 100% uptime for a service provided by a corporation, except to the degree that it violates a contract/ TOS. “Google’s discriminatory actions against my campaign are reflective of how dangerous their complete dominance over internet search is, and how the increasing dominance of big tech companies over our public discourse threatens our core American values,” Gabbard said in a statement. “This is a threat to free speech, fair elections and to our democracy, and I intend to fight back on behalf of all Americans.” Her statement quoted above make me like her less, and I don't feel like I'm a particularly pro-google guy.
einpoklum 7y ago
"We didn't really do anything to you, it was this automatic machine that we programmed. We have no way of controlling what it does, and thus are not responsible for the outcomes of its activities at all." Google defense brief. Also, probably, a classic Dilbert comic.

192 points by dvt 7y ago

suyash 7y ago

I hope so wins the lawsuit!

vernie 7y ago
Yea it almost certainly tanked her campaign.
- m463 7y ago
  On the contrary, I believe the publicity will call lots of attention to her.

higggugcg 7y ago

Silence from the technocrats. Pretty much everyone that comments on HN is basically a part of the extremely corrupt democratic party. Basically HN is full of warmongering deepstaters or those who work and/or directly support as much.

DiseasedBadger 7y ago

The microphone cutting has been going on since long before the debate, kiddo. Welcome to the private-government deplatforming dystopia.

not_a_cop75 7y ago
It's nice to know big business keeps on telling the voters who to elect.
- gesman 7y ago
  Google votes with their algorithms.
- metalchianti 7y ago
  But life becomes much easier when someone/something else decides what you should think!
- lukifer 7y ago
  Because our voting systems are nearly all First Past The Post, voters are forced to vote strategically, based on who they think others are also likely to vote for (and their recursive assessment of those voters' assessments). In game theory, this is known as a Schelling focus[0], and it makes it difficult to reveal voters' true preferences for leaders and policies (as opposed to other systems like Ranked-Choice[1] or Approval). This is often theorized as one reason for the effectiveness of broadcast advertising: in addition to individual influence, one becomes socially influenced by the awareness that millions of others have seen the same advertisement at the same time, and thus can be relied on to use brands and products as signals for identity or group membership. So in this sense, even as the power of broadcast is waning in favor of social networking, broadcast media (such as televised debates) still have tremendous power in powerfully nudging the recursive algorithm: even if I know for a fact that a TV interviewer is cynically kneecapping Gabbard/Yang/whoever, the mere fact that I know so many others are seeing it will influence my assessment of their odds, and discourage me from "throwing my vote away", knowing other viewers are likely reaching the same conclusion. Incidentally, as opposed as the MSM was to Trump during primaries, I think he still leveraged this phenomenon in his favor; partially by being so shocking that he gained regular airtime, thus seeming more prominent and significant, but most especially through his IRL rallies, which acted as a powerful signal of popularity, inline with the common knowledge model described in "Rational Ritual"[2]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) [1] https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV) https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV) [2] https://press.princeton.edu/titles/9998.html https://press.princeton.edu/titles/9998.html

mistermann 7y ago

Can anyone think of any likely and plausible explanations for what went wrong on Google's end?

djrogers 7y ago
Yes - it's even outlined in the articles. A sudden increase in spending triggered a fraud detection algorithm, and the account was re-established before the next morning when a human verified there was no fraud.

ziddoap 7y ago

I'm not a proponent of censorship by any means, but I'm starting to get serious fatigue of these types of stories. Especially in the case of politicians, I have no sympathy when Google or Facebook or Twitter decides to terminate or otherwise take action on an account. Rally behind them until it becomes inconvenient, then launch a suit! What hypocrisy. We got here because of our weird fervor for capitalism, holding it up as some pinnacle of society. Yet when a company successfully exploits all that capitalism has to offer, it's screams and outrage! I admit, I am not fully up to speed on this story. But here's the kicker - after reading this article, I still have no idea what the story is. This is just boilerplate "rally against the big tech companies!" without any rhyme or reason - at least no reason mentioned in the article. >Please join Tulsi in her fight for our core American values of free speech and fair elections. Free speech flows two ways, which is often forgotten. Corporate entities are entitled to free speech as well, for the better or for worse. They are also entitled to remove anyone from their platform or limit the services they offer someone. This is baked into the concept of capitalism. The whole legal system is built on the premise that corporations are awarded autonomy / person-hood. The whole rallying against the corporations which capitalism enabled, in the name of capitalism and free speech.. I just don't understand it. We wanted capitalism. We got it. Stop begging for governments to intervene in private companies, while praising capitalism like some god. Pick a path. And then, apparently, ask for some donations.

not_a_cop75 7y ago
Let companies rule the world! Let them put whatever they want in our meats! Remember the term "mystery meat"? That was from poor quality controls in corporate with zero government oversight.
- ziddoap 7y ago
  I'm not saying that this is the way it should be. I'm just pointing out that we fought for capitalism in it's truest form, and then got angry when companies exploited it. (And still praise it when it suits us)
  - 7y ago

maximente 7y ago

stoked to see this on multiple fronts: - someone with a vested interest + some modicum of power can hold .google's feet to the fire on this issue and will likely hammer the point home even post-settlement or whatever (remember when they out of the blue suspended my ad account?...) - Tulsi maybe gets more exposure as a candidate, leading people to her anti-war ideals, which may influence other candidates admittedly haven't heard google's side but there's precedent here for them committing unwarranted screw ups. of course, if the campaign did do something naughty that'd be a pretty big self inflicted wound.

creaghpatr 7y ago
Better that they hash the issue out in the primaries than in the general.

derp_dee_derp 7y ago

Both sides, Democrat and Republican, are now anti big tech. Love it or Hate it, when you piss off the most powerful governing body on the planet you're in for a bad time. My question is more timeframe: Google obviously won't be broken up tomorrow, but probably earlier than a decade from now. I guess the timeframe depends on who wins the next presidential election?

not_a_cop75 7y ago
I'm pretty sure that google can just be friends with one of 300 other governments and survive.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
maximente 7y ago
reads like a great parable to be written afterwards: the algorithms, successful 99.8% of the time, misfired on a US presidential candidate, who went on to lead the eventually successful efforts to break up Google, neutering its algorithms' effects upon the world. the algorithms giveth; the algorithms taketh away
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tenpies 7y ago
The worst part is I think both sides have at least some merit for their suspicion. Obviously the Republicans seem to be more openly punished and the balance tipped against them, but the Democrats also suffer occasionally, especially if they are not the right Democrat. Google might be treading dangerously close to becoming persona non-grata for 50% of the population, regardless of who wins. There is also a cautionary tale there that perhaps the whole idea of "don't talk politics at work" was not some tool from The Man to keep workers subdued, but rather a hard-earned lesson to keep companies from imploding when employers think they've been hired to be activists. Surprise, turns out not everything has to be political and your personal identity doesn't have to bleed over to your professional life.

slg 7y ago

It might be more appropriate to link to a indepdent article about this rather than Gabbard's site. Here is one from The Verge [1]. It sounds like Google's fraud/spam algorithms automatically triggered the suspension (maybe due to a large increase in spend meant to build on Gabbard's post debate momentum). The account was unlocked after human intervention. Gabbard insinuates the initial suspension was politically motivated, which seems hard to believe. But either way, it highlights a long standing problem with Google giving algorithms so much power. It is also potentially more damaging for the all of us who aren't presidential candidates and can't get our accounts quickly restored if we mistakenly anger some unknown Google algorithm. [1] - https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/25/8930373/google-tulsi-gabbard-democratic-candidate-lawsuit-ad-search-ban-political-bias-debates https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/25/8930373/google-tulsi-gabb...

dvt 7y ago
I was considering linking the NYT article[1] but consciously decided against it. I don't even particularly support Tulsi Gabbard, but I'd rather go to the horse's mouth, so to speak, and let people make up their own minds. Also, her blog has no intrusive ads or paywalls. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/technology/tulsi-gabbard-sues-google.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/technology/tulsi-gabbard-...
- slg 7y ago
  That is a fair viewpoint. I am just a little cautious of only hearing one side of a lawsuit, especially when that side is a political campaign and therefore is very concerned with spin. Gabbard's account has a lot of political grandstanding in it that you wouldn't find in a independent article.
cwkoss 7y ago
> Gabbard insinuates the initial suspension was politically motivated The subtext I'm reading is that the "major" political accounts probably have specific flags set by Google internally to prevent automated shut-offs like this. If Google is not applying these whitelist flags to all candidates in a fair and systematic fashion, it would effectively be utilizing their corporate resources to disproportionately benefit certain candidates at the expense of others.

gringoDan 7y ago

NYT article that has more information: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/technology/tulsi-gabbard-sues-google.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/technology/tulsi-gabbard-... The account was inactive from 9:30pm on June 27th - 3:30am on June 28th. This doesn't seem like an act of malice from Google, but rather a verification check. Some excerpts: > Tulsi Now Inc., the campaign committee for Ms. Gabbard, said Google suspended the campaign’s advertising account for six hours on June 27 and June 28, obstructing its ability to raise money and spread her message to potential voters. > After the first Democratic debate, Ms. Gabbard was briefly the most searched-for candidate on Google. Her campaign wanted to capitalize on the attention she was receiving by buying ads that would have placed its website at the top of search results for her name. > The lawsuit also said the Gabbard campaign believed its emails were being placed in spam folders on Gmail at “a disproportionately high rate” when compared with emails from other Democratic candidates.

Causality1 7y ago
Now now, we can't let facts get in the way of the victimhood Olympics.
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't post unsubstantive comments, call names, or take threads further into flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dang 7y ago
Changed to that now. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20528797 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20528797.
- danielvinson 7y ago
  In general, I think people would appreciate the link not being to a paywall.
  - 7y ago

rory096 7y ago

Since OP has no actual information, some excerpts from the NYT story: >Tulsi Now Inc., the campaign committee for Ms. Gabbard, said Google suspended the campaign’s advertising account for six hours on June 27 and June 28, obstructing its ability to raise money and spread her message to potential voters. >The lawsuit also said the Gabbard campaign believed its emails were being placed in spam folders on Gmail at “a disproportionately high rate” when compared with emails from other Democratic candidates. >Google has automated systems that flag unusual activity on advertiser accounts — including large spending changes — to prevent fraud, said Jose Castaneda, a spokesman for the company. >“In this case, our system triggered a suspension and the account was reinstated shortly thereafter,” he said. “We are proud to offer ad products that help campaigns connect directly with voters, and we do so without bias toward any party or political ideology.” >Gabbard campaign workers sent an email to a Google representative on June 27 at 9:30 p.m. once they realized the account had been suspended. In emails reviewed by The New York Times, the campaign sent Google a screenshot of a notice of suspension for “problems with billing information or violations of our advertising policies.” >The account was reactivated at 3:30 a.m. on June 28. In the email announcing that it had reinstated the account, Google wrote that the company temporarily suspended the campaign’s account to verify billing information and policy compliance, but offered no other explanation for what had happened. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/technology/tulsi-gabbard-sues-google.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/technology/tulsi-gabbard-...

Gibbon1 7y ago
> but offered no other explanation for what had happened. And yeah she should be suing to force discovery.
delfinom 7y ago
>The lawsuit also said the Gabbard campaign believed its emails were being placed in spam folders on Gmail at “a disproportionately high rate” when compared with emails from other Democratic candidates. Or you know, more people spam foldered your junk mail and triggered the algorithim to learn and mark you more globally as spam. Shit, I spam folder anything that is unsolicited, any politicial party.

sct202 7y ago

I saw that Googles response was that "large spending changes" caused an automatic suspension. With all of Google's tech, they should just have that weird Google Assistant call the phone listed on the account to have the account owner verbally confirm the changes instead of flat out freezing it.

anm89 7y ago

This brings up the inherent absurdity of wanting tech infrastructure providers to sensor their platforms. When the mob decides that they don't like a thing then it's "why were they allowed a platform". Whereas when the mob wants access to a thing and then it's restricted it's "why were they allowed to capriciously control my access" It's an inherently unwinnable game. Tech companies who are essentially an information utility at this point controlling huge flows of content should not be made judge jury and executioner on what is acceptable speech. It's bizarre to me that people who on one hand seem to hate these companies also want to give them immense power and responsibility to restrict access to information. It's because they associate the idea of censorship with getting the specific thing they want censored and not with a broader world in which these companies hold this power. Not a huge fan of Joe Rogan but Naval Ravikant expresses this very lucidly on the podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNWN5ioF-9A&feature=youtu.be&t=592 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNWN5ioF-9A&feature=youtu.be...

natalyarostova 7y ago
This is why the corner solution of free speech as a cultural meme was started, which was a precursor to its formalization. The corner solution essentially 'solves' this issue by realizing partial censorship is a non-stable equilibrium.
dv_dt 7y ago
I feel like we've forgetton how to propose and discuss common standards that should apply in encouraging and enforcing public speech. It looks like a unwinnable game if there aren't standards - but our media and our politicians rarely ever couch discussion in those terms, only in individual conflict terms which makes it more difficult to pull a common direction out of the mass.
- anm89 7y ago
  Yes this is a huge problem. These days everyone gets a say and the loudest voice wins but many people are simply not systematic thinkers. Their idea of a how a system should behave is whatever behavior gives them what they want now, regardless of what the final equilibrium of moving to that state would be.

writepub 7y ago

Of all the trending searches after the debate, Google's systems singling out Tulsi's account for flagging seems suspicious, and Google's robo-responses to press inquiries specious. I'm sure other candidates upped their spending, so let's have the ACTUAL numbers Google! Also, it's a little surprising to see parroted defenses of Google here - they operate behind an opaque cloak, designed from the ground up for plausible deniability on every single one of their actions. Their P.R. statements cannot be believed. Tulsi's criticisms do not seem unsubstantiated, and the fact she's suing a corp. with unlimited funding indicates her campaign believes they have some evidence of malice. Between the two, I'd give Tulsi the benefit of doubt, and wait for the discovery stage in this case

nameismypw 7y ago

> The lawsuit accuses Google of violating the First Amendment, among other offenses, and Gabbard is seeking $50 million plus assurances that Google will refrain from “censoring or restricting” the account. Isn't it common rhetoric that Google _can't_ violate the First Amendment, being a private company? They have the ability to arbitrarily close or censor any account they choose. Politicians don't get special treatment, especially while saying it's fair for Google to close accounts belonging to people whom they personally find objectionable.

vernie 7y ago

Tangentially related question: How much money will be spent by all these losing campaigns?

icebraining 7y ago
A few hundred million dollars: https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race

shadowmore 7y ago

On a first principles level, this highlights the core issue of bans/blocks/suspensions being handed out immediately rather than after a series of strike-based warning messages or something to that effect. YouTube creators come to mind as some of the most blatantly affected by this, i.e. when YouTube automatically demonetizes videos, losing the creator revenue from 75%+ of the video's viewers, and then remonetizes it after an appeal. At no point should any algorithm have the ability to block any account or perform any other such drastic measure (demonetization, etc.). It's just absurd.

neonate 7y ago

http://archive.is/AM6iY http://archive.is/AM6iY

abstract7 7y ago

Tulsi is the most prominent Democrat presidential candidate that the media often says has conservative views. She is also broadly considered anti-establishment. Are there any establishment Democrat candidates (e.g. Harvard and Yale Law faculty member and senior senator Warren) to date that have had their Google ad accounts suspended by an 'unbiased' algorithm?

mistermann 7y ago
This is the kind of evidence I'd want to see before going along with the "we know there's nothing to see here" crowd - if this outage is completely legitimate, I'd think Google should be able to produce a list of similar outages involving non-run-of-the-mill accounts - or, do they genuinely have no attribute that would provide their algorithm with a hint as to the "class" an account falls in?

rdtsc 7y ago

On one hand this might seem like Google is trying to hurt her. On the other hand, if there was anyone at Google who was actually rooting for her, and had any input or ability to suspend accounts, this could end up actually helping her, as it pits her against the "big tech" and would in the long term help her chances of winning the election. But, as they say, sometimes, the algorithms is just an algorithm, and it could be just a routine suspension and Gabbard's campaign saw an opportunity to profit (PR-wise) from it.

amriksohata 7y ago

Tulsi is one of the few candidates on either side that believes in servant leadership

AzzieElbab 7y ago

whoever coined the term "artificial stupidity" is/was a prophet

prpp0ndj 7y ago

Perhaps it’s a simple case of “Gmail users label her messages as spam more than other Dem candidates.” and Google is using that to train their filter. Social norms have never been decided in an entirely open and objective way. We’re free to speak. Not be heard. Tulsi isn’t owed an audience of Gmail users. Look at all these “but the free market!” type pols who got us to give everything up to corps getting bit. Suddenly investigations and regulations be coming! Not a peep when, you know, they started bulk collecting the general public’s phone calls and emails.

Syama 7y ago

Algorithm defense is a new Twinkie defense. On the first debate where so many candidates are buying google ads, for Google to have not planned for a spike in advertising and blaming it on the algorithm is just inexcusable. Either Google is very incompetent and the person in charge needs to be fired, or there is something else going on. Either incompetence or intentional their action did impact Tulsi Gabbard's post-debate moment and her fundraising ability and google is liable in election interference.

orcasauce 7y ago

How is this a violation of her "Freedom of speech"? Google is not the government. The Bill of Rights protects us from the government, not private enterprise. I feel I'm surely missing some key detail.

gundmc 7y ago

Google should just disallow political ads entirely. This is a no-win proposition. Being too lax leads to election meddling, trying to flag suspicious activity is censorship. You're just an easy punching bag. They've already stopped serving political ads in Canada, so there's precedent.

jayjay1010 7y ago

Would he resign if Google took a position in a non political debate but a scientific debate? http://linkaudit.co/blog/google-takes-side-in-controversial-vaccine-safety-debate/ http://linkaudit.co/blog/google-takes-side-in-controversial-...

Excel_Wizard 7y ago

In all likelihood, Gabbard and her campaign managers are perfectly aware that: 1. Google's automatic account suspension systems were doing exactly what they would do for any other account. 2. There was no intentional discrimination/meddling. A sudden spike of search traffic corresponding with a sudden influx of advertising spending is likely to trigger red flags for the system. 6 hours of downtime for these google ads did damage her campaign, but Gabbard, or anybody, is not entitled to 100% uptime for a service provided by a corporation, except to the degree that it violates a contract/ TOS. “Google’s discriminatory actions against my campaign are reflective of how dangerous their complete dominance over internet search is, and how the increasing dominance of big tech companies over our public discourse threatens our core American values,” Gabbard said in a statement. “This is a threat to free speech, fair elections and to our democracy, and I intend to fight back on behalf of all Americans.” Her statement quoted above make me like her less, and I don't feel like I'm a particularly pro-google guy.

dimator 7y ago
Not to mention, as a private company, Google could do whatever it wanted anyway, there is no first amendment protection. This lawsuit is probably going to get dismissed, so I have to treat it as a stunt to get some cheap headlines.
ggm 7y ago
I am not an american and know none of the players. However I do use google ads. What I see, is that in two independent google accounts, running campaigns on the same search terms and keyword triggers, there are times I can show my two accounts "compete" for the same mindshare. In any normal endeavour this is just how it works, but in politics, the consequences of a differential treatment of two candidates in the same space is not good for democracy. I don't know who I support, but a framework which accepts money for placement and then determines an asymmetric bias in placement irrespective of bid price, and then perturbs visibility of political ads, is going to be mis-understood and mis-represented as systemic bias by somebody. Its human nature to assume its human centric behaviour, not a heuristic breakdown. Hanlon's razor isn't always well applied.
writepub 7y ago

Excel_Wizard 7y ago

einpoklum 7y ago

"We didn't really do anything to you, it was this automatic machine that we programmed. We have no way of controlling what it does, and thus are not responsible for the outcomes of its activities at all." Google defense brief. Also, probably, a classic Dilbert comic.