Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 206

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

  1. #161

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

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    https://www.newsweek.com/facebook-go...onopoly-699286


    Yes but I thought the US was about free markets nobody made people use twitter (and only god knows why they do), Bing is out there is it googles fault it manged the best search site. Remeber when the internet was freedom? Yep golden age ism. Remember how much more elegant and lean programs were on VAX machines I sure you want to back to black and green text to save on all that wasted effort to for data storage, ram and oversized cpus. The ease of setting up a web site??? Optimized for what browser, and shafting modem users or not, not to mention OS issues. Tying to keep the AG extension's one for ISU economics running was a bloody nightmare in 1990.

    "He concludes, "The web and the internet have represented freedom: efficient and unsupervised exchange of information between people of all nations"

    Ha - one word China.
    It's complicated. My position is not that Google, Facebook, Twitter etc. should be nationalized or that we should abandon capitalism. Such suggestions are hysterical caricatures of the arguments being made. My view is simply that, as the 2016 election showed, the influence these platforms and search engines are able to exert makes their policies a matter of public concern. I've never felt that the centralization of information was healthy for democracy or free thought, irrespective of whether its in the social media, broadcasting or print media sectors. Allowing a handful of profiteers (almost all of whom are based out of a single US state) to be the gatekeepers of information is a dangerous game which empowers radical activists and leads to serious political issues being treated like entertainment.
    Last edited by Cope; July 01, 2019 at 01:13 PM.



  2. #162

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

    Google running best search engine isn't exactly an automatic right to limit public's access to information based on political agenda. In a way, political bias in algorithms can and should be interpreted as false advertising.

  3. #163
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    17,268

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    You mean around about the time that the Democratic Party was crying bloody murder about Russia's supposed electoral interference via Facebook and other social media platforms? If I go and search your forum history, I'm not going to find you complaining about that now am I?
    Do you understand whatsoever that internet traffic has changed in the last two years? Its why i pointed it out.

    Please search my old posts. I did oppose Russian interference but i've also stated that social media influence is vastly overblown.


    Where's the evidence of bias?
    The source of the actual article.


    Oh well, if its only Facebook and Google that makes it a-okay.
    A very nice strawman. Sorry i called you out for making a false claim and pointing out you didn't read your own article.



    No one is arguing that Google is strong arming web users into using their services.
    You claimed multinational companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter directly influence up to 75% of Internet traffic. Your own source doesn't even say that.

    If you honestly don't understand how the majority of web traffic in the US passing through two or three companies makes the editorial policies of said companies a point of public concern, then there's no further reason to continue debating.
    Web traffic is not refferal traffic. Your article only talks about refferal traffic which is not the same thing. Please do find actual proof to your claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Google running best search engine isn't exactly an automatic right to limit public's access to information based on political agenda. In a way, political bias in algorithms can and should be interpreted as false advertising.
    What public information does Google prevent you from accessing?
    Last edited by Vanoi; July 01, 2019 at 01:26 PM.

  4. #164

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Typically yes.
    Then what was your opinion on that bakery that was owned by a Christian who didn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding? I am asking because you seemed to support adding another Protected Group while also putting a lot of emphasis on the monopolistic power of certain tech companies. That would imply you would want to bust them, not make a new Protected Group. Protected Groups are protected from discrimination from any business regardless of monopolistic power; i.e. a small bar in Arkansas can get in trouble for refusing to serve a veteran because the owner doesn't like the army.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  5. #165

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

    If this was a similar case, there'd only be a few major corporate chains of bakeries, that would all collude to refuse to bake gay cakes, then regulation would be justified, just like it is justified to to regulate platform denial and other attempts by private corporate entities such as Google to make major political moves. And no, that's not really socialism, unless one argues that any form of of government regulation is socialism.

  6. #166

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

    Right, you don't want Protected Group status, then, you want anti-trust action.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  7. #167

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    Do you understand whatsoever that internet traffic has changed in the last two years? Its why i pointed it out.
    Marginal differences in the popularity and valuation of certain Silicon Valley corporations since 2017 doesn't provide the basis for an argument which rejects the need for regulation.

    Please search my old posts. I did oppose Russian interference but i've also stated that social media influence is vastly overblown.
    So either you think New York Times was lying when it claimed that Russian influence reached 126 million Americans prior to the 2016 election through Facebook alone or you think that a platform having the scope to reach ~1/2 of the American population isn't significant.

    The source of the actual article.
    Which part specifically indicates a bias that disproves the validity of the data being used?

    A very nice strawman. Sorry i called you out for making a false claim and pointing out you didn't read your own article.
    1. You don't know what a straw man is.
    2. The claim was not false. If Google and Facebook alone have direct influence over 75% of web traffic alone then Google, Facebook and Twitter also do. The fact that Twitter wasn't specifically listed is irrelevant.

    You claimed multinational companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter directly influence up to 75% of Internet traffic. Your own source doesn't even say that.
    "Facebook and Google now have direct influence over nearly three quarters of all internet traffic". This is literally the first line. And you have the temerity to accuse me of not reading my own source? Laughable. Not that this is even relevant. Having an influence over the majority of web traffic (since the majority passes through your service) doesn't imply that the direction of the traffic was forced.

    Web traffic is not refferal traffic. Your article only talks about refferal traffic which is not the same thing. Please do find actual proof to your claim.
    One of the graphs shown relates to refferal traffic; that doesn't provide the entire basis for the claims being made.

    In any case, and as I've said, if you refuse even to concede that Facebook, Google, Twitter and other large multinational digital corporations posses the influence to make their policies a matter of public concern then there is no point in debating this point any further. You are free to hold your delusional view, and the rest of us can continue the conversation.



  8. #168

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Right, you don't want Protected Group status, then, you want anti-trust action.
    And facebook is more a vertically integrated company. Which means anti-trust action won't do much for what he's complaining about. You know, Instagram, WhatsApp, tbh....etc.

    And you know, Alphabet has some pretty blatant competition he can't complain about. He'd just be breaking off youtube, probably gmail, tenor....etc.
    Last edited by Gaidin; July 01, 2019 at 02:12 PM.
    One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

    Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.

  9. #169

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

    There is a middle ground between protected group status and anti-trust action - media companies have to provide platform to anything that is legal in US. Another regulation that would be great for promotion of freedom and democracy is to ban big tech from providing information to foreign governments - that way Britons and Germans could express what they think without fear of big brother receiving their IP address from those sites and jailing them for wrongthink. And no, such regulations do not imply nationalization. Private companies already have to abide by a set of rules and regulations imposed by the government, adding a few more won't cause an apocalypse.

  10. #170

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

    Anti-trust law doesn't mean they have to provide a platform to anything that is legal in the US. It just means that if they are so integrated as to form a cartel that they can be broken up. The problem is the companies you're whining about are vertically integrated companies.
    One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

    Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.

  11. #171

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Then what was your opinion on that bakery that was owned by a Christian who didn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding? I am asking because you seemed to support adding another Protected Group while also putting a lot of emphasis on the monopolistic power of certain tech companies. That would imply you would want to bust them, not make a new Protected Group. Protected Groups are protected from discrimination from any business regardless of monopolistic power; i.e. a small bar in Arkansas can get in trouble for refusing to serve a veteran because the owner doesn't like the army.
    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.



  12. #172
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    17,268

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Marginal differences in the popularity and valuation of certain Silicon Valley corporations since 2017 doesn't provide the basis for an argument which rejects the need for regulation.
    Web traffic is much more than silicon valley corporations. Nothing you said changes the fact your data is old and not representative of 2019. Thus its not accurate.


    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    So either you think New York Times was lying when it claimed that Russian influence reached 126 million Americans prior to the 2016 election through Facebook alone or you think that a platform having the scope to reach ~1/2 of the American population isn't significant.
    Reaching people and influencing people are two different things.

    https://www.journalism.org/2018/09/1...latforms-2018/

    Two thirds of Americans get their news get their news eahc often, sometimes, or hardly ever on social media. Out of those americans 57% consider the news on social media to be largely inaccurate.

    I find the whole theory of social media vastly influencing Americans hard to believe when the majority who do use it for news consider it inaccurate.


    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Which part specifically indicates a bias that disproves the validity of the data being used?
    The title. Its inaccurate and misleading.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    1. You don't know what a straw man is.
    You purposely misinterpreted my argument. Do try again.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    2. The claim was not false. If Google and Facebook alone have direct influence over 75% of web traffic alone then Google, Facebook and Twitter also do. The fact that Twitter wasn't specifically listed is irrelevant. .
    Google and Facebook don't have direct influence over 75% of web traffic. Referral traffic is not web traffic. You still haven't provided an accurate source and again your own source you don't seem to have still read does not again mention Twitter. Your Twitter claim is nothing but conjecture at this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    "Facebook and Google now have direct influence over nearly three quarters of all internet traffic". This is literally the first line.
    And then it goes on to use a chart for referral traffic. Which is not web traffic.

    https://www.similarweb.com/top-websites/united-states

    That is a sample of web traffic. Google, and Facebook have the most trafficked websites followed by porn, Yahoo, Twitter, Ebay, and it goes on and on.


    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    And you have the temerity to accuse me of not reading my own source? Laughable. Not that this is even relevant. Having an influence over the majority of web traffic (since the majority passes through your service) doesn't imply that the direction of the traffic was forced.
    Your entire point is irrelevant as your source only presents evidence for referral traffic not web traffic.



    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    One of the graphs shown relates to refferal traffic; that doesn't provide the entire basis for the claims being made.

    In any case, and as I've said, if you refuse even to concede that Facebook, Google, Twitter and other large multinational digital corporations posses the influence to make their policies a matter of public concern then there is no point in debating this point any further. You are free to hold your delusional view, and the rest of us can continue the conversation.
    Feel free to stop. You are trying to pass off referral traffic as web traffic. they're not the same thing. Its not my fault you and HH have this odd problem, of proving your claims.

  13. #173

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaidin View Post
    Anti-trust law doesn't mean they have to provide a platform to anything that is legal in the US. It just means that if they are so integrated as to form a cartel that they can be broken up. The problem is the companies you're whining about are vertically integrated companies.
    the above post describes a perfect alternative, where a minor regulation that prevents platform denial is a solution to big tech trying to play politics.

  14. #174

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

    Except before as was said, corporations are people. This is a ruling you can't escape. People would then have to said what other people want them to.
    One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

    Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.

  15. #175

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    Boring
    Do try and read the claims being made more carefully. No one has said that 75% of web traffic is on Google and Facebook; the claim was that they have a direct influence over 75% of web traffic. As the most prominent referral sites in the US (and the sites with the most traffic) Google and Facebook have a significant amount of influence over the sites to which their users are referred. By extension, they are directly influencing the nature of web traffic. If people are finding Amazon, pornhub, eBay, BBC News and God knows what else via Google and Facebook, then Google and Facebook are directly influencing web traffic - which was the claim made. That means if Google and Facebook start adopting policies which are designed to manipulate referrals on the basis of the political preferences of their CEO's and managers, then they are manipulating the nature of the information that their customers are exposed to. This, in my view, is a matter of public concern because it directly impacts the attitudes of a significant number of voters.
    Last edited by Cope; July 01, 2019 at 06:07 PM.



  16. #176

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

    Is there an argument against having Google, FB etc. declare themselves to be either platforms (and thus not subject to lawsuits but have limited 'editorial' control over content) or publishers (and thus have 'editorial' control, but also be subject to lawsuits)?

  17. #177

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

    You mean under current law? This article was making the rounds a while ago.

    No, Section 230 Does Not Require Platforms to Be “Neutral” | Electronic Frontier Foundation

    After more back-and-forth, Sen. Cruz said, “The predicate for Section 230 immunity under the CDA is that you’re a neutral public forum. Do you consider yourself a neutral public forum, or are you engaged in political speech, which is your right under the First Amendment?” It was a baffling question. Sen. Cruz seemed to be suggesting, incorrectly, that Facebook had to make a choice between enjoying protections for free speech under the First Amendment and enjoying the additional protections that Section 230 offers online platforms.

    Online platforms are within their First Amendment rights to moderate their online platforms however they like, and they’re additionally shielded by Section 230 for many types of liability for their users’ speech. It’s not one or the other. It’s both.

    Indeed, one of the reasons why Congress first passed Section 230 was to enable online platforms to engage in good-faith community moderation without fear of taking on undue liability for their users’ posts. In two important early cases over Internet speech, courts allowed civil defamation claims against Prodigy but not against Compuserve; since Prodigy deleted some messages for “offensiveness” and “bad taste,” a court reasoned, it could be treated as a publisher and held liable for its users’ posts. Former Rep. Chris Cox recalls reading about the Prodigy opinion on an airplane and thinking that it was “surpassingly stupid.” That revelation led to Cox and then Rep. Ron Wyden introducing the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act, which would later become Section 230.

    ...

    There are many good reasons to be concerned about politically motivated takedowns of legitimate online speech. Around the world, the groups silenced on Facebook and other platforms are often those that are marginalized in other areas of public life too.

    It’s foolish to suggest that web platforms should lose their Section 230 protections for failing to align their moderation policies to an imaginary standard of political neutrality. Trying to legislate such a “neutrality” requirement for online platforms—besides being unworkable—would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment. In practice, creating additional hoops for platforms to jump through in order to maintain their Section 230 protections would almost certainly result in fewer opportunities to share controversial opinions online, not more: under Section 230, platforms devoted to niche interests and minority views can thrive.
    Ignore List (to save time):

    Exarch, Coughdrop addict

  18. #178
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    17,268

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Do try and read the claims being made more carefully. No one has said that 75% of web traffic is on Google and Facebook; the claim was that they have a direct influence over 75% of web traffic. As the most prominent referral sites in the US (and the sites with the most traffic) Google and Facebook have a significant amount of influence over the sites to which their users are referred. By extension, they are directly influencing the nature of web traffic. If people are finding Amazon, pornhub, eBay, BBC News and God knows what else via Google and Facebook, then Google and Facebook are directly influencing web traffic - which was the claim made. That means if Google and Facebook start adopting policies which are designed to manipulate referrals on the basis of the political preferences of their CEO's and managers, then they are manipulating the nature of the information that their customers are exposed to. This, in my view, is a matter of public concern because it directly impacts the attitudes of a significant number of voters.
    Referral traffic is nothing. Claiming Facebook and Google directly influence 75% of web traffic because they dominate in refferal traffic is hiliarious and not supported by your own source.

    These companies cannot influence other sites like Yahoo or Twitter or Reddit. They have no power over the content over them. People can use Facebook and Google to get there but you have plenty of options anyways but that doesn't mean they hold direct influence of 75% of the Internet traffic and the websites people are reffered to. You vastly overestimate their influence.

    They already manipulate the results. Facebook still controls content on its service and what you see and people themseleves and pages can block you which changes what you see.

    Google doesn't restrict results to my knowledge. Except probably child pornography.

    Even if they started to manipulate the results it'll onlly hurt them. Still other social media services and search engines to use.


    Prod got it right. Platforms are not required to be neutral anyways.

  19. #179

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    Referral traffic is nothing. Claiming Facebook and Google directly influence 75% of web traffic because they dominate in refferal traffic is hiliarious and not supported by your own source.

    These companies cannot influence other sites like Yahoo or Twitter or Reddit. They have no power over the content over them. People can use Facebook and Google to get there but you have plenty of options anyways but that doesn't mean they hold direct influence of 75% of the Internet traffic and the websites people are reffered to. You vastly overestimate their influence.

    They already manipulate the results. Facebook still controls content on its service and what you see and people themseleves and pages can block you which changes what you see.

    Google doesn't restrict results to my knowledge. Except probably child pornography.

    Even if they started to manipulate the results it'll onlly hurt them. Still other social media services and search engines to use.


    Prod got it right. Platforms are not required to be neutral anyways.
    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. 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.

    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.

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



  20. #180

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaidin View Post
    Except before as was said, corporations are people. This is a ruling you can't escape. People would then have to said what other people want them to.
    They would apply to business, not to individuals.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •