5 ms·

Finally someone gets it. Imagine if Google was dominated by religious conservatives and their "inappropriate" language suggestions flagged "gay parents" or "pr

by lin83 4y ago

Finally someone gets it. Imagine if Google was dominated by religious conservatives and their "inappropriate" language suggestions flagged "gay parents" or "pro-choice" as 'wrong' by default.

bombcar 4y ago
The current threat to imagine is Musk buying Google or something.
- lin83 4y ago
  I can imagine a ridiculous Black Mirror-like scenario in which a Tesla suggests that instead of driving to a Bernie Sanders event as planned, that the driver go to a conservative one instead. After all, Tesla could decide that Sanders' politics are inappropriate and harmful (to society/its bottom line).
  - bombcar 4y ago
    It's fun to begin to think about how much "soft power" companies have in ways we don't even expect. If Apple Maps decides to route traffic down a different street than normal, that could have substantial effects on business on that street. We like to think we make informed rational decisions at every point in our life, but we don't; the inputs matter a lot and companies control more of those than we would want to admit.
hairofadog 4y ago
Imagine if the actual government was dominated by religious conservatives and they tried to make it illegal to discuss "gay parents" in schools or for doctors to discuss abortions with their patients.
- johnnyanmac 4y ago
  At least the government is and will be challenged by the judicial system... eventually. Not fast enough, but it's being challenged as we speak. Tech oligarchies don't have such restrictions. It's almost scarier.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    Isn't the supreme authority of the judicial system directly appointed by that same government? So that challenge will probably end up failing.
    - johnnyanmac 4y ago
      Depends on the govt at the time the judge was apppointed. And what level. The theory on the federal level is "this judge was appointed by president X-1, so they aren't influenced by president X". So for better or worse (depending on which president that filled the vacancy), they may go against what is popular in administration X. The federal supreme court tries to be shielded away from the immediate politics of worrying about re-election and stuff. On the state level, well... as usual it's a free for all. Just to list the "hot" states of subject: - Texas: the people vote for them, 6 year term. no different from voting for a senator/representative. - Florida: More complex, but in short: the governor chooses from a list of candidates handed to them, and the chosen judge serves one term (4 years) before the people decide to keep them or not. So the people on the state level here have some sway. But then again, the people here are... well, Texas/Florida people.
      - seoaeu 4y ago
        Except that the same political actors who passed these laws have spent decades working to stack the Supreme Court with justices who will let the laws remain in effect…
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- mxkopy 4y ago
  Right?? People on this thread are blowing up this issue to hyperbolic proportions, while issues of those proportions actually exist. Makes me sad.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    I think you’re blowing your own areas of concern to hyperbolic proportions, but cannot or will not even see why others would find this far more concerning.
    - mxkopy 4y ago
      There is a war going on between Russia and Ukraine. If you go to Russia's TikTok, you will find no mention of it. Not because someone at TikTok said "let's make a feature that users can opt out of to highlight insensitive things," no, it's because you will go to jail if you upload content that Russia doesn't like. Let's compare. You say things Google doesn't like, a purple squiggly goes under your words that you have the option to turn off. You say things Russia doesn't like, and armed men barge into your home to take you to jail. How disconnected from reality do you have to be for me to have to make this comparison explicit???
      - josephg 4y ago
        The existence of the war in Ukraine doesn’t mean we stop caring about anything else. If you got punched in the face, I think you would still care even though there’s a war on. If anything, the actions Putin is taking to control the information landscape make me much more upset about woke clippy. Liberal society should be about a free exchange of ideas. It’s not just another orthodoxy with soft manipulation instead of hard manipulation for thoughtcrime. If you don’t understand why this seems manipulative and tone deaf to lots of folks, that means you’re confused. Not right.
        mxkopy 4y ago
        Slippery slope fallacy. Woke clippy does not lead to authoritarianism, authoritarian legislation does. Of which there is plenty in my country. You are truly blessed if the most worrying thing in your nation right now is Google's attempt to compete with Grammarly. If there was a war going on, I would not compare getting punched in the face to a war crime.

by lin83 4y ago

Finally someone gets it. Imagine if Google was dominated by religious conservatives and their "inappropriate" language suggestions flagged "gay parents" or "pro-choice" as 'wrong' by default.

bombcar 4y ago

The current threat to imagine is Musk buying Google or something.

lin83 4y ago
I can imagine a ridiculous Black Mirror-like scenario in which a Tesla suggests that instead of driving to a Bernie Sanders event as planned, that the driver go to a conservative one instead. After all, Tesla could decide that Sanders' politics are inappropriate and harmful (to society/its bottom line).
- bombcar 4y ago
  It's fun to begin to think about how much "soft power" companies have in ways we don't even expect. If Apple Maps decides to route traffic down a different street than normal, that could have substantial effects on business on that street. We like to think we make informed rational decisions at every point in our life, but we don't; the inputs matter a lot and companies control more of those than we would want to admit.

hairofadog 4y ago

Imagine if the actual government was dominated by religious conservatives and they tried to make it illegal to discuss "gay parents" in schools or for doctors to discuss abortions with their patients.

johnnyanmac 4y ago
At least the government is and will be challenged by the judicial system... eventually. Not fast enough, but it's being challenged as we speak. Tech oligarchies don't have such restrictions. It's almost scarier.
- sofixa 4y ago
  Isn't the supreme authority of the judicial system directly appointed by that same government? So that challenge will probably end up failing.
  - johnnyanmac 4y ago
    Depends on the govt at the time the judge was apppointed. And what level. The theory on the federal level is "this judge was appointed by president X-1, so they aren't influenced by president X". So for better or worse (depending on which president that filled the vacancy), they may go against what is popular in administration X. The federal supreme court tries to be shielded away from the immediate politics of worrying about re-election and stuff. On the state level, well... as usual it's a free for all. Just to list the "hot" states of subject: - Texas: the people vote for them, 6 year term. no different from voting for a senator/representative. - Florida: More complex, but in short: the governor chooses from a list of candidates handed to them, and the chosen judge serves one term (4 years) before the people decide to keep them or not. So the people on the state level here have some sway. But then again, the people here are... well, Texas/Florida people.
    - seoaeu 4y ago
      Except that the same political actors who passed these laws have spent decades working to stack the Supreme Court with justices who will let the laws remain in effect…
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
mxkopy 4y ago
Right?? People on this thread are blowing up this issue to hyperbolic proportions, while issues of those proportions actually exist. Makes me sad.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  I think you’re blowing your own areas of concern to hyperbolic proportions, but cannot or will not even see why others would find this far more concerning.
  - mxkopy 4y ago
    There is a war going on between Russia and Ukraine. If you go to Russia's TikTok, you will find no mention of it. Not because someone at TikTok said "let's make a feature that users can opt out of to highlight insensitive things," no, it's because you will go to jail if you upload content that Russia doesn't like. Let's compare. You say things Google doesn't like, a purple squiggly goes under your words that you have the option to turn off. You say things Russia doesn't like, and armed men barge into your home to take you to jail. How disconnected from reality do you have to be for me to have to make this comparison explicit???
    - josephg 4y ago
      The existence of the war in Ukraine doesn’t mean we stop caring about anything else. If you got punched in the face, I think you would still care even though there’s a war on. If anything, the actions Putin is taking to control the information landscape make me much more upset about woke clippy. Liberal society should be about a free exchange of ideas. It’s not just another orthodoxy with soft manipulation instead of hard manipulation for thoughtcrime. If you don’t understand why this seems manipulative and tone deaf to lots of folks, that means you’re confused. Not right.
      - mxkopy 4y ago
        Slippery slope fallacy. Woke clippy does not lead to authoritarianism, authoritarian legislation does. Of which there is plenty in my country. You are truly blessed if the most worrying thing in your nation right now is Google's attempt to compete with Grammarly. If there was a war going on, I would not compare getting punched in the face to a war crime.