5 ms·

> unless they started to select and/or moderate that content, at which point they would lose the carrier status But since the homepage feed (or any medium real

> unless they started to select and/or moderate that content, at which point they would lose the carrier status But since the homepage feed (or any medium really) displays contents in a certain order, some selection must take place. Typically some algorithm (usually a recommender system together with some business logic) is used to determine which contents from all that's available to you are actually shown to you and in what order. Bias seems to be an unavoidable part of the design to me.

roenxi 7y ago
There are shades of grey. However, we have leaked footage of a Google co-founder saying (at an all-hands meeting no less) that the outcome of a democratic election conflicts with Google's values. There is a lot of room for interpretation there, but there are signals from Google in particular (eg, donation streams; leaked video; the occasional scandal bubbling out) that their management might be seeing the world through a partisan lens. Abstract ideas of unavoidable bias are only of academic interest; the right wing of politics is justified in seeing Google as a direct political threat. That would not be justified if Google had a strict "no political talk, no political campaigning, we are the Switzerland of the internet" style policy for their workplace.
- m10i 7y ago
  Would you mind providing a source for this leak?
  - roenxi 7y ago
    It was that one from late last yer. Might have been https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google-leaderships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-googl... . There wasn't anything there that was particularly scandalous; it was just a really interesting that this was the state of affairs inside Google.
    - disgruntledphd2 7y ago
      I mean, it's OK if management have political views, as long as those views don't influence search results. As long as the experimental process is rigorous and the people are incentivised to use the right metric (and the metric isn't politically biased), then it should be fine. However, upon making that argument I find myself concerned at the possibility that Google's corporate interests (and perhaps some political interests) may shape which questions get asked, and thus the direction the service takes. It's quite analagous to Chomsky's views of news organisations in Manufacturing Consent.
- platz 7y ago
  Every industry sees the world though a partisan lens to some extent. Those criticisms also apply to energy, education, repair, etc
  - magduf 7y ago
    Exactly. Criticisms about Google's politicking are unjustified as long as lobbyists are allowed in other industries.
- magduf 7y ago
  I honestly don't see the problem with Google using its position to affect peoples' viewpoints. If we're going to allow other industries (such as energy) to hire lobbyists or advertisers to change peoples' viewpoints, and even worse, going straight to the decision-makers with lobbyist $$$, then criticizing Google is hypocritical. >the outcome of a democratic election conflicts with Google's values. What's wrong with this? The outcomes of the previous Presidential elections conflicted with many other companies' values. Every political election's outcome conflicts with some company's values, because companies stand to gain or lose depending on the policies enacted by that politician.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    I'm not making a moral case. I do think there is a moral case as well but it is a very complicated do-unto-others-as-you-would-have-them-do-unto-you style one with some nuances that isn't going to fit into one comment. The case is that Google is potentially a direct threat to the right wing of politics. It would be prudent for the right wing to respond by trying to break Google up and neutering them as a platform, so that there are several successful competitors in all their markets. Realistically it is possible that the moderate left wing could be convinced as well - nobody is served by the risk that an entity as powerful as Google becomes an active propaganda platform. If they aren't even professing neutrality internally then they are on the way to becoming one. Google could have avoided this situation by not explicitly championing political views inside their organisation. Also the energy situations you cite aren't really comparable, the companies are only lobbying for things that make them more money and they don't have the same sort of power as Google in the political sphere.
    - magduf 7y ago
      It would be totally hypocritical for the right wing to break up Google. The Democrats tried that with Microsoft back in the late 90s, and as soon as Bush took office the case was dropped because Republicans don't believe in enforcing anti-trust law. >the companies are only lobbying for things that make them more money Every company does this if they can, and it's either going to help or hurt some political side. The case you're making here is that Google is bad for Republicans. Maybe, but coal companies are bad for Democrats (they give money to Republicans to help them win races), so why is this OK for coal companies, but not Google? I don't see the difference. As long as other companies or industries are allowed to influence politics with money, it's perfectly OK for Google to influence elections however they want, and it would be wrong to break them up because, as I said before, the Republican party is opposed to anti-trust law.
solveit 7y ago
Everyone was fine with chronological order.
- motivic 7y ago
  In that case one can just spam the same (or similar) post every second and your feed will likely be filled with that post. I know I'm setting up a bit of a straw man here but my point is even chronological order can be exploited.
  - jsjohnst 7y ago
    > I know I'm setting up a bit of a straw man here Especially as this thread has already mostly said spam filtering (which your example would easily trigger) isn’t in opposition towards a goal of neutral status.
  - Fnoord 7y ago
    > my point is even chronological order can be exploited The question is, how easy can it be? The straw man, is indeed, that you can filter such, client- or server-side. If you see the same shit the whole time, you ignore it all. Easy; even IRC clients with scripting had such features in the 90s. Here is a list of techniques used in e-mail filtering [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_filtering#See_also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_filtering#See_also
  - leereeves 7y ago
    And if you did that, people would unfriend/unfollow you. Problem solved.

roenxi 7y ago

There are shades of grey. However, we have leaked footage of a Google co-founder saying (at an all-hands meeting no less) that the outcome of a democratic election conflicts with Google's values. There is a lot of room for interpretation there, but there are signals from Google in particular (eg, donation streams; leaked video; the occasional scandal bubbling out) that their management might be seeing the world through a partisan lens. Abstract ideas of unavoidable bias are only of academic interest; the right wing of politics is justified in seeing Google as a direct political threat. That would not be justified if Google had a strict "no political talk, no political campaigning, we are the Switzerland of the internet" style policy for their workplace.

m10i 7y ago
Would you mind providing a source for this leak?
- roenxi 7y ago
  It was that one from late last yer. Might have been https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google-leaderships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-googl... . There wasn't anything there that was particularly scandalous; it was just a really interesting that this was the state of affairs inside Google.
  - disgruntledphd2 7y ago
    I mean, it's OK if management have political views, as long as those views don't influence search results. As long as the experimental process is rigorous and the people are incentivised to use the right metric (and the metric isn't politically biased), then it should be fine. However, upon making that argument I find myself concerned at the possibility that Google's corporate interests (and perhaps some political interests) may shape which questions get asked, and thus the direction the service takes. It's quite analagous to Chomsky's views of news organisations in Manufacturing Consent.
platz 7y ago
Every industry sees the world though a partisan lens to some extent. Those criticisms also apply to energy, education, repair, etc
- magduf 7y ago
  Exactly. Criticisms about Google's politicking are unjustified as long as lobbyists are allowed in other industries.
magduf 7y ago
I honestly don't see the problem with Google using its position to affect peoples' viewpoints. If we're going to allow other industries (such as energy) to hire lobbyists or advertisers to change peoples' viewpoints, and even worse, going straight to the decision-makers with lobbyist $$$, then criticizing Google is hypocritical. >the outcome of a democratic election conflicts with Google's values. What's wrong with this? The outcomes of the previous Presidential elections conflicted with many other companies' values. Every political election's outcome conflicts with some company's values, because companies stand to gain or lose depending on the policies enacted by that politician.
- roenxi 7y ago
  I'm not making a moral case. I do think there is a moral case as well but it is a very complicated do-unto-others-as-you-would-have-them-do-unto-you style one with some nuances that isn't going to fit into one comment. The case is that Google is potentially a direct threat to the right wing of politics. It would be prudent for the right wing to respond by trying to break Google up and neutering them as a platform, so that there are several successful competitors in all their markets. Realistically it is possible that the moderate left wing could be convinced as well - nobody is served by the risk that an entity as powerful as Google becomes an active propaganda platform. If they aren't even professing neutrality internally then they are on the way to becoming one. Google could have avoided this situation by not explicitly championing political views inside their organisation. Also the energy situations you cite aren't really comparable, the companies are only lobbying for things that make them more money and they don't have the same sort of power as Google in the political sphere.
  - magduf 7y ago
    It would be totally hypocritical for the right wing to break up Google. The Democrats tried that with Microsoft back in the late 90s, and as soon as Bush took office the case was dropped because Republicans don't believe in enforcing anti-trust law. >the companies are only lobbying for things that make them more money Every company does this if they can, and it's either going to help or hurt some political side. The case you're making here is that Google is bad for Republicans. Maybe, but coal companies are bad for Democrats (they give money to Republicans to help them win races), so why is this OK for coal companies, but not Google? I don't see the difference. As long as other companies or industries are allowed to influence politics with money, it's perfectly OK for Google to influence elections however they want, and it would be wrong to break them up because, as I said before, the Republican party is opposed to anti-trust law.

solveit 7y ago

Everyone was fine with chronological order.

motivic 7y ago
In that case one can just spam the same (or similar) post every second and your feed will likely be filled with that post. I know I'm setting up a bit of a straw man here but my point is even chronological order can be exploited.
- jsjohnst 7y ago
  > I know I'm setting up a bit of a straw man here Especially as this thread has already mostly said spam filtering (which your example would easily trigger) isn’t in opposition towards a goal of neutral status.
- Fnoord 7y ago
  > my point is even chronological order can be exploited The question is, how easy can it be? The straw man, is indeed, that you can filter such, client- or server-side. If you see the same shit the whole time, you ignore it all. Easy; even IRC clients with scripting had such features in the 90s. Here is a list of techniques used in e-mail filtering [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_filtering#See_also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_filtering#See_also
- leereeves 7y ago
  And if you did that, people would unfriend/unfollow you. Problem solved.