4 ms·

Google will be totally neutral fellas despite: 1. Some 95% of employees being registered Democrats 2. 100% of senior leadership being Democrat. Heck, they eve

Google will be totally neutral fellas despite: 1. Some 95% of employees being registered Democrats 2. 100% of senior leadership being Democrat. Heck, they even wept publicly after the 2016 elections. 3. They've never refuted contents of leaked tapes exposing bias - just keep denying that the said bias is company policy. [1][2][3][4] [1]: https://youtu.be/CX6LlEcJ4nw https://youtu.be/CX6LlEcJ4nw [2]: https://youtu.be/IzF7nBmwPso https://youtu.be/IzF7nBmwPso [3]: https://youtu.be/SY82j7NUtCQ https://youtu.be/SY82j7NUtCQ [4]: https://youtu.be/ik_kzn3etsE https://youtu.be/ik_kzn3etsE

djaque 7y ago
Who their employee's vote for isn't bias. Speaking of bias, all of your sources are skewed to the extremes of the political spectrum and I've got to imagine that they are giving a very one sided view of the problem your talking about.
- throwGuardian 7y ago
  > Who their employee's vote for isn't bias Oh the double speak here! Do you remember the ouster of Brandon Eich from Mozilla? Or the cancel culture plaguing Chick Filet right now? Why not apply that logic to companies led by conservatives? Can you imagine the triggering on the matter if Google's employees were 95% Republican? And all my sources are unedited Congressional testimonies. Feel free to source all 4 hours of them off C-SPAN/PBS. Also note that all claims hold: that Google reportedly gets caught with seemingly biased actions, and never denies the actions in testimonies, just maintains it isn't company policy.
ggggtez 7y ago
95% political affiliation already off the bat is suspicious. Who measured? How did they measure? Google certainly wouldn't, as asking your employees political affiliation would be illegal. And not just affiliation, but registration? What about employees in non-US countries? They are registered with a US political party? If you're going to just make stuff up, why not say 100% at that point?
- throwGuardian 7y ago
  I was referring to Google USA, as the timing of this announcement right before peak political US ad-spend is quite clearly a stab at US politics. As for political affiliation, in your estimate, what is Google-USA's make up? Also, if non-US employees are making political censorship decisions on behalf of Google, isn;t the foreign interference? All that intersectional talk from Googlers that has made it into unbiased AI truths(??) in their search autocomplete, like "men can have [periods, babies, ...]" really points to overwhelming Republican bent at Google. Right?
  - ggggtez 7y ago
    I guess you missed the point: you are guessing at the distribution of political leanings of thousands of people, and then using your guess as "proof" of bias. Me guessing a different number doesn't change the fact that it would be a guess. It's not evidence of bias, and trying to prove that your guess is true is at best circular logic (they are biased so there must be more Democrats, which in turn... Proves that they are biased??). I reject this idea on the simple truth of making logical arguments based on facts. Guesses are not evidence. As for the rest of your post, you seem to be confusing search autocomplete with double click ads, which shows a gross misunderstanding of what is even being discussed.
    - throwGuardian 7y ago
      > As for the rest of your post, you seem to be confusing search autocomplete with double click ads, which shows a gross misunderstanding of what is even being discussed As for this nugget, if shows a gross misunderstanding of what we're debating: whether Google is biased towards one party. But processing your full response - nitpicking on the exact % of Democrats is a masterful tangent from the crux - that Google is likely not going to censor fairly. And the only reason I can think of for this bike shedding [1] is likely because you know it's true. [1]: https://bit.ly/2XA2wAx https://bit.ly/2XA2wAx
      - ggggtez 7y ago

djaque 7y ago

Who their employee's vote for isn't bias. Speaking of bias, all of your sources are skewed to the extremes of the political spectrum and I've got to imagine that they are giving a very one sided view of the problem your talking about.

throwGuardian 7y ago
> Who their employee's vote for isn't bias Oh the double speak here! Do you remember the ouster of Brandon Eich from Mozilla? Or the cancel culture plaguing Chick Filet right now? Why not apply that logic to companies led by conservatives? Can you imagine the triggering on the matter if Google's employees were 95% Republican? And all my sources are unedited Congressional testimonies. Feel free to source all 4 hours of them off C-SPAN/PBS. Also note that all claims hold: that Google reportedly gets caught with seemingly biased actions, and never denies the actions in testimonies, just maintains it isn't company policy.

ggggtez 7y ago

95% political affiliation already off the bat is suspicious. Who measured? How did they measure? Google certainly wouldn't, as asking your employees political affiliation would be illegal. And not just affiliation, but registration? What about employees in non-US countries? They are registered with a US political party? If you're going to just make stuff up, why not say 100% at that point?

throwGuardian 7y ago
I was referring to Google USA, as the timing of this announcement right before peak political US ad-spend is quite clearly a stab at US politics. As for political affiliation, in your estimate, what is Google-USA's make up? Also, if non-US employees are making political censorship decisions on behalf of Google, isn;t the foreign interference? All that intersectional talk from Googlers that has made it into unbiased AI truths(??) in their search autocomplete, like "men can have [periods, babies, ...]" really points to overwhelming Republican bent at Google. Right?
- ggggtez 7y ago
  I guess you missed the point: you are guessing at the distribution of political leanings of thousands of people, and then using your guess as "proof" of bias. Me guessing a different number doesn't change the fact that it would be a guess. It's not evidence of bias, and trying to prove that your guess is true is at best circular logic (they are biased so there must be more Democrats, which in turn... Proves that they are biased??). I reject this idea on the simple truth of making logical arguments based on facts. Guesses are not evidence. As for the rest of your post, you seem to be confusing search autocomplete with double click ads, which shows a gross misunderstanding of what is even being discussed.
  - throwGuardian 7y ago
    > As for the rest of your post, you seem to be confusing search autocomplete with double click ads, which shows a gross misunderstanding of what is even being discussed As for this nugget, if shows a gross misunderstanding of what we're debating: whether Google is biased towards one party. But processing your full response - nitpicking on the exact % of Democrats is a masterful tangent from the crux - that Google is likely not going to censor fairly. And the only reason I can think of for this bike shedding [1] is likely because you know it's true. [1]: https://bit.ly/2XA2wAx https://bit.ly/2XA2wAx
    - ggggtez 7y ago