3 ms·

"...even though company leadership has said publicly, including to Congress, that the company does not use blacklists or whitelists to influence its results."

"...even though company leadership has said publicly, including to Congress, that the company does not use blacklists or whitelists to influence its results." Ummm, isn't that providing false testimony and considered perjury? Why is this shit never, ever prosecuted against a large corporation? It's simple - you know who lied under oath an it's recorded. You know that person knew what the truth was because they were a high ranking person who's job it is would be to know stuff like that. So either they committed perjury or they are grossly incompetent. And it's not like they didn't know what was going to be asked of them, nor did they state they weren't sure. Can't stand this crap. The two standard requirements are that the person needs to have intent to deceive and that it must be material information to the proceeding. Since the discussion was entirely surround this aspect of search, there logically must have been intent to deceive. Furthermore, being the central topic, it was most certainly of material significance.

windsurfer 7y ago
Google definitely says that they blacklist dangerous and deceptive sites. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that, though.
- turc1656 7y ago
  Probably not, but those lists are more than just dangerous and deceptive sites. They also include things that individuals at Google manipulate based on their own opinions which can be one-offs or added to the lists. From the article: "The engineer "didn't want a piece of human anatomy or the description of a sex act to appear when someone started typing the singer's name," as the paper describes it. The unfiltered search results were "kind of horrible," he added." That has nothing at all to do with web safety or anything fraudulent or deceptive. Also, just because people wouldn't have a problem with that limited use (if it actually was limited to just those two things), that still doesn't make the statement not technically perjury. If you were in front of Congress and they asked you something like whether or not your business changed the design of the website the user sees based on metrics/tracking that an AI bot determines might generate more user engagement for that user, and you say "no, we don't do that" but later on you tell everyone that you're only doing it for people that opt-in, that's probably considered perjury. And I'm sure you could see why, especially if all users were set to "opt-in" by default.

windsurfer 7y ago

Google definitely says that they blacklist dangerous and deceptive sites. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that, though.

turc1656 7y ago
Probably not, but those lists are more than just dangerous and deceptive sites. They also include things that individuals at Google manipulate based on their own opinions which can be one-offs or added to the lists. From the article: "The engineer "didn't want a piece of human anatomy or the description of a sex act to appear when someone started typing the singer's name," as the paper describes it. The unfiltered search results were "kind of horrible," he added." That has nothing at all to do with web safety or anything fraudulent or deceptive. Also, just because people wouldn't have a problem with that limited use (if it actually was limited to just those two things), that still doesn't make the statement not technically perjury. If you were in front of Congress and they asked you something like whether or not your business changed the design of the website the user sees based on metrics/tracking that an AI bot determines might generate more user engagement for that user, and you say "no, we don't do that" but later on you tell everyone that you're only doing it for people that opt-in, that's probably considered perjury. And I'm sure you could see why, especially if all users were set to "opt-in" by default.