Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Sunday October 14 2018, @05:20AM   Printer-friendly
from the don't-be-████ dept.

Google, continuing to distance itself from "Don't be evil.", has produced an internal document that endorses political censorship to influence elections and more. The argument is that free speech (an "American tradition") is not viable on the internet due to various factors such as the 2016 election of President Donald J. Trump.

The document admits that big tech companies "control the majority of online conversations" and have made a "shift towards censorship" over the popularity of political choices that they are unwilling to accept. This directly contradicts the repeated assertions that the political bias of big tech company executives doesn't end up affecting the products.

Fortunately for free speech, that document has leaked and now you can see the thinking of those who deem themselves your masters.

According to the briefing itself, it was the product of an extensive process involving "several layers of research," including expert interviews with MIT Tech Review editor-in-chief Jason Pontin, Atlantic staff writer Franklin Foer, and academic Kalev Leetaru. 35 cultural observers and 7 cultural leaders from seven countries on five continents were also consulted to produce it.

The Breitbart report is divided into several parts:

The Good Censor [alt link (Dropbox download)]

Forbes disagrees:

The "leaked" presentation was quickly framed by some as a roadmap to censorship and that it demonstrated the company was examining how to suppress certain viewpoints or crack down on internet freedoms. Yet, a closer read of the presentation would suggest precisely the opposite: a company at the center of many of our debates about the future of the online world grappling with the existential question of the modern web: how to absolutely preserve freedom of speech, while at the same time preventing terrorists, criminals, repressive governments and trolls from turning this incredible force for good into a toxic and dangerous place that undermines democracy, advances terrorism, assists fraudsters and empowers hatred? How do we elevate the voices of the disenfranchised and give them a place at the table of global discourse, while not also awakening the trolls that seek to repress them? How do we empower the free expression of ideas and bring an incredibly diverse and divided world together, while embracing the differences that make us who we are? How do we reach across countries and cultures, across languages and landscapes, to have meaningful conversations about the future of our shared planet? Most importantly, how can technology play a positive role in helping facilitate the good, empowering civil discourse, while discouraging the bad, from terrorist recruiting to fraud to toxic speech and trolling?

[...] Reading the final report today for the first time alongside the rest of the web, my own take on it is very different than the framing that seems to have emerged in certain quarters. I see not a company charting a future of web censorship, but rather a company in its 20th year reaching out to experts across the world trying to make sense of what the web has become and what its own place should be in that future. To me it is extraordinary to see Silicon Valley actually listening, absorbing and reflecting on what the world is saying about the state of the web. This is the Valley as it should be – listening to its users and understanding the web from their vantage, rather than dictating its own vision for the future of our online world.

Stepping back and looking at the themes of the Google presentation, what one sees is essentially a summary of the state of the web today and the pragmatic reality that in the anarchy of the anything-goes free-for-all of the early web, the darkness began to eclipse the light.

Also at The Verge, Digital Journal, The Hill, Dexerto.


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Sunday October 14 2018, @05:50AM (13 children)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane (4757) on Sunday October 14 2018, @05:50AM (#748512)

    Why, that's surprising... Breitbart have much to loose from censorship of fake news and political manipulation bullshitting [wikipedia.org]. Free speech is the singlemost important value that allows these nutcases to exist.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Flamebait=1, Troll=2, Insightful=7, Disagree=1, Total=11
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Captival on Sunday October 14 2018, @05:53AM (4 children)

    by Captival (6866) on Sunday October 14 2018, @05:53AM (#748514)

    Imagine how scathing that comment would be if you could actually speak English well enough to write it correctly.

    PS: strawmanning the source doesn't make the leak any less true. Google already admitted it.

    • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday October 14 2018, @10:02AM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday October 14 2018, @10:02AM (#748543) Journal

      No, I believe that Rosco is correct,

      Breitbart have much to loose from censorship of fake news

      Both in grammar and spelling. Brietbarf has much to loose, and looses it on a regular basis. Andrew loosed it years ago.

      --
      #Freearistarchus, again!!!!!1!!
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @10:32AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @10:32AM (#748548)

      Imagine how scathing that comment would be if you could actually speak English well enough to write it correctly.

      When your only argument is "Whaa! Typos! Grammar! You don't speak English well!" then you're surrendering. Rocco is correct. And you are correct too ... correct to surrender.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @10:53PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @10:53PM (#748744)

        What was OP's argument? Cause he is just strawmaning Breitbart with no evidence other than some retarded Wikipedia link. EWith quotes from this articles like "and some of its content has been called misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by liberals" just read like badge of honor to me.

        I find Breitbart to be the sanest online news outlet of all the ones I have read over the years, and there have been plenty. The often report things the "mainstream" media bury. And they have plenty of actual scoops, like this Google leaks story, which are actual scoops, unlike when Vox has a scoop about an "oppressed" obscure drug sub-culture of some third-world shithole.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @08:05AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @08:05AM (#748883)

          One does not simply "strawman" Brietbart! Brietbart was created as an alt-right propaganda outlet, no one needs to accuse it of being such, this is established fact.

          some of its content has been called misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by liberals" just read like badge of honor to me.

          Oh, Brietbart reader, then? OK, you misogynist, xenomorphic, racist piece of human refuse that is deplorable, fuch off and no one cares what you think because your taste in media is obviously all of those thing. Scoops! Ha! Of human excrement, like yourself! Ha!

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @12:48PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @12:48PM (#748588)

    Free speech is the singlemost important value that allows these nutcases to exist.

    So you'd restrict free speech in order to silence a pro Israeli web site, what are you a nazi or something?

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Sunday October 14 2018, @02:26PM (5 children)

    by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 14 2018, @02:26PM (#748614) Homepage Journal

    You may not like Breitbart, but it doesn't matter. Free speech requires that people you dislike also get to speak. If you disagree with that, even in the slightest, then you do not believe in free speech.

    Of course, that's the world that the progressives and SJWs have been trying to create. Every cry about "fake news" is really a cry for censorship. What they fail to understand is that, at some point, the tables will turn. If they have established a precedent of squashing undesirable viewpoints, they will cry all the louder when theirs are the viewpoints being suppressed.

    Even though I live in Europe, I object strenously to the European viewpoint that civility is more important than freedom. If someone wants to question the Holocaust, they should be able to do so. If someone wants to insult foreign leaders, why not? Otherwise, someone is determining what viewpoints are acceptable, and which ones are not - and that's not a power that anyone or any government should have.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Nerdfest on Sunday October 14 2018, @04:01PM (3 children)

      by Nerdfest (80) on Sunday October 14 2018, @04:01PM (#748648)

      Sure, fake news is free speech, but it is also, fraud, if you're looking to punish people for things that are not true. Removing free speech to do it is the wrong approach. There are several other criminal charges that could apply as well, including inciting unrest, public nuisance, etc. Probably not worth the trouble in small cases, but Breitbart et al are pretty much begging for it, assuming they're located in countries with that sort of law.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @04:56PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @04:56PM (#748658)

        Sure, fake news [twitter.com] is free speech, but it is also, fraud, if you're looking to punish people for things that are not true. Removing free speech to do it is the wrong approach. There are several other criminal charges that could apply as well, including inciting unrest, public nuisance, etc. Probably not worth the trouble in small cases, but CNN [twitter.com] et al are pretty much begging for it, assuming they're located in countries with that sort of law.

        All reporting has an editorial bias, why do you think we call the items the media peddle "news stories"?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @06:48PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @06:48PM (#748680)

        Nerdfest is a fake lawyer.

      • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday October 15 2018, @04:32AM

        by Reziac (2489) on Monday October 15 2018, @04:32AM (#748828) Homepage
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @10:32AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @10:32AM (#748945)

      Free speech requires that people you dislike also get to speak. If you disagree with that, even in the slightest, then you do not believe in free speech.

      Whoosh! It's that smell of burning straw again.

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @07:34PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @07:34PM (#748690)

    Wikipedia is definitely not a reliable source on anything regarding American politics, Hillary Clinton, or her opponents. [deepfreeze.it] They have administrators and foundation officers working directly under Donna Brazile, Wael Ghonim, Zack Exley, [archive.is] and the Obama campaign's San Francisco field office director [8ch.net] who are paid to slant the site, make their opponents look as bad as possible, and ban anyone who gets in their way. They also have people on the editorial board of the New York Times so when they need a "reliable source" they can whip one up.