5 ms·

People are rabidly dismissive of the project veritas expose, but articles with quotes like this repeteadly show pervasive bias among Google staff which aligns e

People are rabidly dismissive of the project veritas expose, but articles with quotes like this repeteadly show pervasive bias among Google staff which aligns exactly with the accusations and candid management recordings within the video [1]. The video is admittedly obnoxious and overly dramatic, but the candid clips with exec Jen Gennai strongly suggest that these political biases are leaking into technical work with an intended effect on society. 1.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...

cowmoo728 7y ago
Even if google doesn't have a political bias, there's no way for them to avoid allegations of unfair political treatment. They're in an unenviable position as the arbiter of global popularity and visibility, and there are thousands of mostly far-right groups that are flooding google with garbage. Just by virtue of taking down clearly false, misleading, or violent content, they're already "biased" against one political ideology.
- weberc2 7y ago
  > there are thousands of mostly far-right groups that are flooding google with garbage Is there a citation for this? I see lots of far-left garbage on social media generally (by which I mean posts espousing violent revolution, racism, sexism, blank slatism, anarchism, and/or communism). I'm sure there are niches of far right racism, but it mostly seems like a niche problem (and given that the far right is largely a reaction to the far left, it stands to reason that we have an opportunity and obligation to kill both with the same stone).
ausbah 7y ago
People are rabidly dismissive of Project Veritas and another one of their "exposures" because of their attempts to "make evidence" by tricking people into admitting something, cherrypicking what "evidence" they do display, and having a "answer first, evidence second" mindset to their operation. If you want to show that Google has "bias against conservatives" or whatever, get it from a reputable source instead of the garbage heap that is Project Veritas.
- bendbro 7y ago
  I've seen some of their videos. They seem fairly damning, and rebuttals have always been fairly weak. For example, a google exec was captured on video saying: “smaller companies don’t have the resources” to “prevent next Trump situation”. In what context does that statement not amount to silencing conservative perspective on their platform? I completely agree it is their right to do so, and probably benefits the nation, but pretending they aren't doing it is terrible optics.
  - memmcgee 7y ago
    Oftentimes the people they say are "executives" are just rank and file employees. I have a friend who is not an executive who got tricked into meeting with a Project Veritas scumbag. Thankfully they realized something was up and left the meeting.
    - bendbro 7y ago
      That's a good point. In general I'd say outing a rank-and-file employee is bad form. There are exceptions of course, like if the employee's revealed behavior is at par with Edward Snowden. The only example I have is the Gennai one, which is what I'm referring to above. I'd love more examples of Project Veritas behaving badly
      - bendbro 7y ago
        Note: not implying Gen Gennai's behavior was Snowden tier
    - fromthestart 7y ago
      The hidden camera captured an interview with Jen Gennai, Head of Responsible Innovation, Global Affairs at Google. You could at least watch the video and find out for yourself. I think the real problem here is that people are aware of Google's bias and OK with it, but unwilling to admit as much.
  - meroes 7y ago
bduerst 7y ago
That video has been debunked as being heavily edited misinformation. Here's Jen's side on it: 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...
- fromthestart 7y ago
  You don't debunk something by saying it's debunked. So her claim is that because she was no longer in the trust and safety team at the time of the video, her opinions are irrelevant? Of course she's going to claim that the video was "heavily edited." But the validity of the video comes from the fact that there is no context which makes the clips of her speaking any less damning. They clearly indicate a willingness by Google to curate search results. >The video then goes on to stitch together a series of debunked conspiracy theories about our search results, and our other products. I'd love to see this debunking. >Google has repeatedly been clear that it works to be a trustworthy source of information, without regard to political viewpoint. In fact, Google has no notion of political ideology in its rankings. And everything I have seen backs this up. Our CEO has said ”We do not bias our products to favor any political agenda.” He’s somewhat more powerful and authoritative than me. Oh, well, if the CEO says it, it must be true. This is just a weak attempt at damage control.
  - CobrastanJorji 7y ago
    Her claim is much simpler. Project Veritas calls her a "powerful senior executive," and she says "I'm not any sort of executive and wouldn't know about any of this even if it were true." I don't see any reason why a propaganda outfit led by a guy convicted of sneaking into government offices on false pretenses should be taken at their word that a random Google employee is a powerful executive when the employee in question says that they are not one. Seems like "they are an executive" would be pretty easy to establish.

cowmoo728 7y ago

Even if google doesn't have a political bias, there's no way for them to avoid allegations of unfair political treatment. They're in an unenviable position as the arbiter of global popularity and visibility, and there are thousands of mostly far-right groups that are flooding google with garbage. Just by virtue of taking down clearly false, misleading, or violent content, they're already "biased" against one political ideology.

weberc2 7y ago
> there are thousands of mostly far-right groups that are flooding google with garbage Is there a citation for this? I see lots of far-left garbage on social media generally (by which I mean posts espousing violent revolution, racism, sexism, blank slatism, anarchism, and/or communism). I'm sure there are niches of far right racism, but it mostly seems like a niche problem (and given that the far right is largely a reaction to the far left, it stands to reason that we have an opportunity and obligation to kill both with the same stone).

ausbah 7y ago

People are rabidly dismissive of Project Veritas and another one of their "exposures" because of their attempts to "make evidence" by tricking people into admitting something, cherrypicking what "evidence" they do display, and having a "answer first, evidence second" mindset to their operation. If you want to show that Google has "bias against conservatives" or whatever, get it from a reputable source instead of the garbage heap that is Project Veritas.

bendbro 7y ago
I've seen some of their videos. They seem fairly damning, and rebuttals have always been fairly weak. For example, a google exec was captured on video saying: “smaller companies don’t have the resources” to “prevent next Trump situation”. In what context does that statement not amount to silencing conservative perspective on their platform? I completely agree it is their right to do so, and probably benefits the nation, but pretending they aren't doing it is terrible optics.
- memmcgee 7y ago
  Oftentimes the people they say are "executives" are just rank and file employees. I have a friend who is not an executive who got tricked into meeting with a Project Veritas scumbag. Thankfully they realized something was up and left the meeting.
  - bendbro 7y ago
    That's a good point. In general I'd say outing a rank-and-file employee is bad form. There are exceptions of course, like if the employee's revealed behavior is at par with Edward Snowden. The only example I have is the Gennai one, which is what I'm referring to above. I'd love more examples of Project Veritas behaving badly
    - bendbro 7y ago
      Note: not implying Gen Gennai's behavior was Snowden tier
  - fromthestart 7y ago
    The hidden camera captured an interview with Jen Gennai, Head of Responsible Innovation, Global Affairs at Google. You could at least watch the video and find out for yourself. I think the real problem here is that people are aware of Google's bias and OK with it, but unwilling to admit as much.
- meroes 7y ago

bduerst 7y ago

That video has been debunked as being heavily edited misinformation. Here's Jen's side on it: 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...

fromthestart 7y ago
You don't debunk something by saying it's debunked. So her claim is that because she was no longer in the trust and safety team at the time of the video, her opinions are irrelevant? Of course she's going to claim that the video was "heavily edited." But the validity of the video comes from the fact that there is no context which makes the clips of her speaking any less damning. They clearly indicate a willingness by Google to curate search results. >The video then goes on to stitch together a series of debunked conspiracy theories about our search results, and our other products. I'd love to see this debunking. >Google has repeatedly been clear that it works to be a trustworthy source of information, without regard to political viewpoint. In fact, Google has no notion of political ideology in its rankings. And everything I have seen backs this up. Our CEO has said ”We do not bias our products to favor any political agenda.” He’s somewhat more powerful and authoritative than me. Oh, well, if the CEO says it, it must be true. This is just a weak attempt at damage control.
- CobrastanJorji 7y ago
  Her claim is much simpler. Project Veritas calls her a "powerful senior executive," and she says "I'm not any sort of executive and wouldn't know about any of this even if it were true." I don't see any reason why a propaganda outfit led by a guy convicted of sneaking into government offices on false pretenses should be taken at their word that a random Google employee is a powerful executive when the employee in question says that they are not one. Seems like "they are an executive" would be pretty easy to establish.