SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Republican Senators Demand Answers about Google+ Cover-up
Senators Thune, Wicker, and Moran Letter to Google
takyon: Three Senators have written a letter to Google CEO Sundar Pichai requesting responses to several questions about the recent Google+ breach.
Also at Reuters, Ars Technica, and The Verge.
How Google's China Project Undermines its Claims to Political Neutrality
Submitted via IRC for chromas
How Google's China project undermines its claims to political neutrality
The company's official position on content moderation remains political neutrality, a spokeswoman told me in an email:
Google is committed to free expression — supporting the free flow of ideas is core to our mission. Where we have developed our own content policies, we enforce them in a politically neutral way. Giving preference to content of one political ideology over another would fundamentally conflict with our goal of providing services that work for everyone.
Of course, it's impossible to read the report or Google's statement without considering Project Dragonfly. According to Ryan Gallagher's ongoing reporting at The Intercept, Google's planned Chinese search engine will enable anything but the free flow of ideas. Even in an environment where American users are calling for tech platforms to limit users' freedoms in exchange for more safety and security, many still recoil at the idea of a search engine that bans search terms in support of an authoritarian regime.
And that's the unresolvable tension at the heart of this report. Almost all of us would agree that some restrictions on free speech are necessary. But few of us would agree on what those restrictions should be. Being a good censor — or at least, a more consistent censor — is within Google's grasp. But being a politically neutral one is probably impossible.
See also: Senator Says Google Failed to Answer Key Questions on China
Related: Leaked Transcript Contradicts Google's Denials About Censored Chinese Search Engine
Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2 Original Submission #3
(Score: 2) by Spamalope on Monday October 15 2018, @11:17AM (2 children)
Does making demonstrably false claims like that attach liability for a publicly traded company?
"The company's official position on content moderation remains political neutrality" - that's been shown to lean left with search/recommended results as well as bans/de-monitization you youtube. (i.e. Google takes sides in a particular election. Negative search results are buried for the supported candidate, positives buried for the other.)
The question becomes what should the consequences be, and in our imperfect world what will they be.
I doubt these politicians give a damn about the breach, but they do know who's been their opponent while claiming neutrality. And by using the same BS here, google gives them an opening to try and get digs in on both.
I've got my popcorn ready!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @06:02PM
Main subject of this article is Facebook's recent (10/11) "mass purge of left-wing political pages as part of an ongoing conspiracy by the state and the technology monopolies to censor the internet." However, there is information relevant to Google and their so-called "political neutrality." I'm assuming that by "left-wing" you mean the pro-capitalist Democratic Party and the various pseudo-left organizations in their orbit.
Facebook’s purge of left-wing media: A frontal assault on freedom of speech [wsws.org]:
That sounds like a cue for Google or even hosting companies and ISPs to do the needful. Point is that this is not merely some paranoid "alt-right" hallucination, and it is happening to all oppositional viewpoints.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday October 15 2018, @09:20PM
Surely you must be joking! A publicly traded company making demonstrably false claims to the press is called "public relations". And making those same demonstrably false claims to the government is called "regulatory compliance".
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by realDonaldTrump on Monday October 15 2018, @01:27PM
"Now that Google+ has been shuttered, I should air my dirty laundry on how awful the project and exec team was. I'm still pissed about the bait and switch they pulled by telling me I'd be working on Chrome, then putting me on this god forsaken piece of shit on day one." Morgan Knutson of Google. twitter.com/morganknutson/status/1049523067506966529 [twitter.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @02:26PM
No such thing!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 15 2018, @03:23PM (2 children)
They are trying to pass that phrase off as something similar to "fair and balanced" from Fox. They want you to believe that they don't have, don't want, a party affiliation. And, if you're naive or gullible, that's how you might read the phrase.
Think back, over the years in history. What ideology do corporations have? Profit, of course. IBM, for instance, was perfectly happy to provide data acquisition, and data analysis for the Nazis, for as long as there was profit in it. The Hudson Bay company deemed that it was profitable to pay for Indian scalps, so they paid for scalps. The India company saw fit to do a lot of things for profit - thereby making Ghandi a hero.
Now, with that sort of context, re-read that "politically neutral" bullshit. Google is stating, as plainly as they know how, that they don't give much of a damn about human rights, or political issues. Google will cater to whoever has the money - whether the money holder be Communist, Capitalist, an African warlord, or the head of a drug cartel. And, they would assist a Nazi government in manipulating data just as readily as IBM did prior to and during WW2.
You'll note that I'm not even "reading between the lines" here. I am simply shifting the context in which you read their statement. Profit, first, everything else be damned.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday October 15 2018, @03:54PM
Profit, first, everything else be damned.
Yes, that's what "politically neutral" means. Being "politically neutral" is very profitable. Besides, most people who preach politics (and religion) really do so for profit. Behind it all is, *what's in it for me?*
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Tuesday October 16 2018, @05:05AM
You're right, politically neutral is a hollow slogan that is neither meaningful nor possible.
Everyone is biased, and the bias of those in charge of a company can't help but bleed through.
Republicans, Democrat, Libertarian, simply doesn't matter. It's one biased viewpoint pointing at the other biased viewpoint and screaming "BIAS!"
All rather amusing when you see the absurdity of it.
http://rs334.pbsrc.com/albums/m440/paul939/cartoons_06-10.jpg~c200 [pbsrc.com]
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @04:00PM
So "Senators Demand Answers" about some tech company (which they do not understand) and the breach (which they do not understand) of a platform (which they do not understand) so they can ... well ... ask mark Zuckerberg more softball questions?
Yes, yes, Zuck has nothing to do with this, but the senators who demand answers probably don't know that. And they still may not know it (or understand it) once they are told. Tell them to ask some guy named Larry (but not Curly or Moe).
Normally I would advise my senator to ask his children (or grandchildren), but I doubt even they would know (or care) what Google+ is. So we'll have another inquiry into something the government wants to regulate but doesn't comprehend.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Monday October 15 2018, @04:56PM (2 children)
One of my big pet peeves.
In other news: Google is run by SJWs who are self-professed communists, and a special report at 11: Doublethink: How humanist Communists overlook the millions upon millions more dead caused by their ideology than fascism.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday October 15 2018, @10:53PM
Is there a browser setting that neutralizes that by just always opening a PDF link as a new tab (both Chrome and Firefox have a built-in reader)? It seems like something you would not want to allow the website to control.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @01:32PM
Whoosh! There's that smell of burning straw again. Just because Google are wrong doesn't mean the alt-right are right. (Ask any Greek; by this logic, they are all Socrates.)