Google is officially a threat to democracy. Executives exposed admitting the company is trying to ''prevent another 2016''

[Vanoi]

1. Google's raison d'etre is to refer: the sole purpose of the most trafficked site in the US is to redirect. Your argument that referral traffic is "nothing" is ludicrous; the financial models of Google, YouTube and Facebook are reliant upon the value of referral traffic

Google is much more than a search engine nowadays and i would like a source for that last statement. Advertising helps run those sites far more than refferals.

Advertisers spend tens of billions of dollars to be referred by these websites; that's why we're able to use them with out incurring any monetary cost.

Those pay money to put ads on their websites which isn't the same as refferals. Those couldn't run without advertising antways so i don't know why you mention it at all.

2. No one is claiming that Google or Facebook are forcing users into using their services or that they have the power to directly determine the content of other websites. Once again, you are misunderstanding the difference between influence and control. The algorithms which Google use to direct people across the web clearly influence the websites that people end up visiting; if I had to bet, most of TWC's users found the site through Google.

That influence is overblown greatly. Sure people probably use Google to get here but so what? Could Google manipulate search results? Yep. Do they? No. Could ypu use another service if Google was manipulating search results? Yes. Your argument on inlfuence falls apart right then and there.

3. I know that platforms are not required to be neutral. That's why we're having this conversation in the first place.

And as Prod's source pointed out you can't force them to be neutral without breaking the law.

[Cope]

Google is much more than a search engine nowadays and i would like a source for that last statement. Advertising helps run those sites far more than refferals.

Those pay money to put ads on their websites which isn't the same as refferals. Those couldn't run without advertising antways so i don't know why you mention it at all.

Advertising is a form of referral; big corporations pay Google, YouTube, Facebook etc. to refer (via advertising) users to certain products and services. Not all referrals are adverts, but all adverts are referrals.

That influence is overblown greatly. Sure people probably use Google to get here but so what? Could Google manipulate search results? Yep. Do they? No. Could ypu use another service if Google was manipulating search results? Yes. Your argument on inlfuence falls apart right then and there.

The problem isn't so much the people who are aware that search engines and social media platforms preference results; its the tens of millions who aren't. Now my point was never that Facebook and Google are deliberately manipulating search algorithms to conform with the political biases of their CEO's and managers - the fact is that we simply don't know. It was that, given certain exposes, the policies of these companies are matter of public concern. I couldn't care less if Google wants to indulge in algorithmic favouritism so long as the millions of people who use their services are aware of it. The same goes for Facebook. If you don't care how the latent political messaging/directing and exploitation of private data affects the flow of relevant political information that is your prerogative.

And as Prod's source pointed out you can't force them to be neutral without breaking the law.

What are you talking about? Aside from the fact that I've never called for businesses to be "neutral", we're talking about the potential for new legislation. This operates on the premise that the legislation would in fact be legal.

[Vanoi]

Advertising is a form of referral; big corporations pay Google, YouTube, Facebook etc. to refer (via advertising) users to certain products and services. Not all referrals are adverts, but all adverts are referrals.

Advertising comes in my forms than just ads and Ads are not automatically refferals. Are you going to prove your claim or not.






The problem isn't so much the people who are aware that search engines and social media platforms preference results; its the tens of millions who aren't. [/QUOTE]
It isnt the government's job to legislate away igornance.

Now my point was never that Facebook and Google are deliberately manipulating search algorithms to conform with the political biases of their CEO's and managers - the fact is that we simply don't know. It was that, given certain exposes, the policies of these companies are matter of public concern. I couldn't care less if Google wants to indulge in algorithmic favouritism so long as the millions of people who use their services are aware of it. The same goes for Facebook. If you don't care how the latent political messaging/directing and exploitation of private data affects the flow of relevant political information that is your prerogative.

You've never even proved there was latent political messaging or exploitation. You also seem to be adding in seperate issues like the use of private data which is not even close to what you were talking about regarding influence on referral traffic.

You haven't even elaborated on those exposes and policies that should be public concern.

What are you talking about? Aside from the fact that I've never called for businesses to be "neutral", we're talking about the potential for new legislation. This operates on the premise that the legislation would in fact be legal.

New legislation that would have to repeal the First Amendment. Not possible.

[Heathen Hammer]

New legislation that would have to repeal the First Amendment. Not possible.

No it wouldn't. Net neutrality didn't require first amendment repeal, neither would this.

[Vanoi]

No it wouldn't. Net neutrality didn't require first amendment repeal, neither would this.

Net neutrality has absolutely nothing to do with controlling content on services and such.

[Cope]

Advertising comes in my forms than just ads and Ads are not automatically refferals. Are you going to prove your claim or not.

Advertisements and referrals are part of the same financial chain; adverts are self-referrals which companies pay third parties such as Google or Facebook to host.

It isnt the government's job to legislate away igornance.

So you disagree with public education and health warnings? How absurd.

You've never even proved there was latent political messaging or exploitation.

I never claimed to have "proved" it: I specifically stated that "the fact is that we don't know" how the search algorithms work. That doesn't mean that there aren't evidence based suspicions.

You also seem to be adding in seperate issues like the use of private data which is not even close to what you were talking about regarding influence on referral traffic.

It is separate but related.

You haven't even elaborated on those exposes and policies that should be public concern.

Off the top of my head, these are some of the reasons why scepticism of multinational tech companies has been growing over recent years:

I. The PV exposé as referenced in the OP.
II. YouTube's so-called "adpocalypses" which saw vague accusations of hate speech and terrorism used as a basis for the marginalization of independent content in favour of corporate material.
III. Leaked Google emails showing a "transparency and ethics" group discussing how to reduce the influence of popular mainstream conservatives who are referred to as "Nazis".
IV. The sacking of James Demore for expressing social views which contradict leftist theology.
V. The admission by Zuckerberg that Silicon Valley is "extremely left-leaning" in its political outlook.
VI. The Cambridge Analytica scandal.
VII. The Russian electoral manipulation scandal.
VIII. Mounting evidence that platforms like Twitter are far less tolerant of conservative voices than they are of liberal voices.
IX. Mounting evidence of Google manipulating search suggestions either to promote "progressive" ideas or censor conservative ones.

New legislation that would have to repeal the First Amendment. Not possible.

No it wouldn't. Non of the suggestions being made would violate the free speech of colossal multinational corporations.

[The spartan]

The problem isn't simply the "monopolistic power of certain tech companies"; their behaviour is simply the most prominent (and important) expression of the problem. If you're willing to accept that religious views can and should be protected from discriminatory practices, then you can see the logic behind wanting to extend this to political affiliations. I don't care if people want to insult each other over politics, but I do care when extremely powerful corporations and state agencies (this refers to Europe mostly) have carte blanche to exclude and bully people on the basis of their political preferences. My objective is always to ensure that ordinary people come into contact with as much unfiltered information as possible; that means that we need to constantly be addressing the balance between corporate and state power.

Well no, political affiliations seem to be different than religious ones in a lot of ways. Imagine a Communist worker at a call center who tells his boss he is a leech on society and worthless to production and the business could do nothing to fire the Communist because he is just expressing his political views. Moreover, I don't buy that these platforms are excluding people for having a certain political affiliation, Conservative youtube channels are still numerous. Certain, let's call them "high octane", individuals are getting in trouble because they were always operating on the edge anyways. To say Stephen Crowder was demonetized "for being Conservative" is about as believable as a person who got into a fight at a bar was removed "for their race". Being part of a Protected Group doesn't grant you immunity from terms of service, you gotta demonstrate individuals are being target for discrimination because they are a Conservative, not because they are doing some other thing that worries the platform.

[Gaidin]

Worth noting, Politics IS a protected class in Washington DC. But that's mostly because so much of the work and hiring done there is politically based. Service could easily be denied because of someone's politics in that 10x10 mile block of land. You're really not going to find another state passing such a thing. Worth noting that Spartan is right, even in DC, if they go high octane for a night and start shouting their views at the top of their lungs they can quickly find themselves on the street for disturbing the environment, their views be damned.

[Heathen Hammer]

Net neutrality has absolutely nothing to do with controlling content on services and such.

It is simply same level of regulation, even less then net neutrality. Not letting big tech play politics isn't unconstitutional, just like labor laws and environmental regulations aren't unconstitutional.

[Basil II the B.S]

Great news, another Senior Software Engineer has come out, this time with name and surname to expose Google bias:
https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/...-taking-sides/

The best thing about the interview is that liberals at Google are de-facto engaging in Orwellian double-think, promoting biased sources like CNN while at the same time telling themselves that they not doing that and being deeply convinced of it.

[PointOfViewGun]

Where did you find that? Bing?

[The spartan]

No, literal hoaxers: Project Veritas. See, Basil is against partisan, biased media unless it says something he likes.

[Basil II the B.S]

Next time we'll wait a Google Engineer going to NYT to talk about liberal bias.

Excuse me if I won't hold me breath on this one.

[The spartan]

How would the NYT being bias mean that Project Veritas is not? Either bias people lie or they don't, it wouldn't just be "the bias people against me lie but the bias people with me don't".

This is putting all PV's legal troubles aside, for the moment.

[Basil II the B.S]

No, the point is that no liberal media is ever going to report this kind of things, nor can even be trusted by whistle blowers for it.

Regardless, the latest guy has a name, surname and position, which he's putting on the line. That's as credible as it can be.

[The spartan]

No, the point is that no liberal media is ever going to report this kind of things, nor can even be trusted by whistle blowers for it.

Cool, than just link a story from a respected, non-liberally biased media source, not what you believe to be the partisan equivalent on the other side.

Again, you can't have your cake and eat it too: you don't get to say "bias media lies" and then amend that to say "bias media I agree with doesn't lie".

[Basil II the B.S]

Are there media without bias anymore? Or minimal?

[The spartan]

Uhh, I do most of my news skimming on Reuters and AP. They seem pretty unbiased to me. The fact you have to ask that kinda disturbs me, though.

[Basil II the B.S]

AP definitely isn't. Reuters is ok but doesn't dare covering inconvenient topics.

[The spartan]

You seem to be confused, I don't care about what you personally think is biased or not. Rather, I am just pointing out you aren't against bias, you just like certain type of biases that you think proves you right. This is why you complain about the "lying liberal media" on one hand, and swing around stories by Project Veritas as if they are preaching the gospel. It isn't a crusade for the truth, it is just partisan hackery.