Slashdot Mirror


Why Google Should Be Afraid of a Missouri Republican's Google Probe (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Republican attorney general of Missouri has launched an investigation into Google's business practices. Josh Hawley wants to know how Google handles user data. And he plans to look into whether Google is using its dominance in the search business to harm companies in other markets where Google competes. It's another sign of growing pressure Google is facing from the political right. Grassroots conservatives increasingly see Google as falling on the wrong side of the culture wars. So far that hasn't had a big impact in Washington policymaking. But with Hawley planning to run for the U.S. Senate next year, we could see more Republican hostility toward Google -- and perhaps other big technology companies -- in the coming years. The Hawley investigation will dig into whether Google violated Missouri's consumer-protection and antitrust laws. Specifically, Hawley will investigate: "Google's collection, use, and disclosure of information about Google users and their online activities," "Google's alleged misappropriation of online content from the websites of its competitors," and "Google's alleged manipulation of search results to preference websites owned by Google and to demote websites that compete with Google." States like Missouri have their own antitrust laws and the power to investigate company business conduct independently of the feds. So Hawley seems to be taking yet another look at those same issues to see if Google's conduct runs afoul of Missouri law.

We don't know if Hawley will get the Republican nomination or win his challenge to Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) next year, but people like him will surely be elected to the Senate in the coming decade. Hawley's decision to go after Google suggests that he sees some upside in being seen as an antagonist to a company that conservatives increasingly view with suspicion. More than that, it suggests that Hawley believes it's worth the risk of alienating the GOP's pro-business wing, which takes a dim view of strict antitrust enforcement even if it targets a company with close ties to Democrats.

19 of 231 comments (clear)

  1. Why companies should stay out of politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When your company founders are openly supporting the political opposition party, your company partnered with the old government, and your company has demonstrated your willingness to censure political thought of the user base when they go against your chosen politics, then you shouldn't be surprised that your company becomes targeted by the opposition party when your party is out of power. You made your bed, now sleep in it.

    1. Re:Why companies should stay out of politics by markdavis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >"Why companies should stay out of politics"

      +1 Google has been ACTIVELY "left", so why would this surprise anyone? And "left" government officials have done exactly the same type of harassment as this in the past. It is best to be neutral on political things not directly about business.

      Actors, too, should keep the hell out of politics. A lot of them look pretty damn stupid going on ads telling us how to vote, or making stupid political commentaries, as if their opinions are somehow more valid, important, or enlightened than the rest of us.

    2. Re:Why companies should stay out of politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Google has been ACTIVELY "left", so why would this surprise anyone? And "left" government officials have done exactly the same type of harassment as this in the past.

      So many commenters here have been quick to forget discriminatory IRS practices under Obama.

    3. Re:Why companies should stay out of politics by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Insightful

      LOL if you don't think Google is left and SJW, you're so far inside your own bubble that anyone to the right of Mao Zedong looks like a nazi to you.

      "Googleâ(TM)s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety," he wrote in his TL;DR section of the memo. "This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed. The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology."

      The response? Threats of violence. "Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldnâ(TM)t assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face, and even if there were a group of like-minded individuals I could put you with, nobody would be able to collaborate with them. You have just created a textbook hostile workplace environment."

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:Why companies should stay out of politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You mean the thing that was investigated by a republican congress and didn't happen?

    5. Re: Why companies should stay out of politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hmm well when you support the left wing candidate for POTUS

      Hint; there was no such person. Even Bernie Sanders is pretty much middle of the road. Both Hillary and Donald are corporate stooges working for the 1% over everyone else. The difference being only that Trump probably works more for the 0.001% and the Russians whilst Hillary works for the 0.01% and the Banks, which may well make her worse.

    6. Re:Why companies should stay out of politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Shoot, this is a hard argument to make. Mainly because facts like this just don't matter in political perception. It doesn't really matter what Google does, the OPs point was that the founder's political activities position the company, and that's exactly right. The founders worked for a partisan presidential campaign, and took advantage of great access to the White House. I don't actually think there was a profit motive there. I think they did that to try to help the country, and I think they did help the country.

      But it doesn't matter what their motivations were. It doesn't matter what the company does.

      To answer your pointed question directly: "ACTIVELY left" means running the web strategy for Obama's first campaign. It's totally within their rights to do that, but it's clearly political activity and forms a justified basis for the perception of bias.

      On another note... you are the reason why the right wingers won the last presidential election. You can't claim to be tolerant and progressive while expressing such disdain for people with different political viewpoints and cultures. It's hypocritical. It plays into people's fears that folks on the left would prefer to force people to behave a certain way, and that modern liberalism is dead.

      And hey, right wingers don't have to deal with this standard? Tough shit. You worry about you first. Welcome to trying convince people of your good intentions.

      If it makes you feel better, all ANYONE on the left needs to do is simply not fuck up for the next year (until the midterm elections). Don't denigrate anyone's religion or culture. Don't imply that rural folks are stupid, lazy, or uneducated. Just don't be an asshole, and the Republicans are going to self destruct their way out of power. It is absurd that this needs to be said.

    7. Re:Why companies should stay out of politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You mean the thing that was investigated by a republican congress and didn't happen?

      OJ isn't a murderer. Clinton didn't perjure himself. Bill Cosby, Weinstein, and all the others never molested anyone. Etc.

      Interesting that pointing out left wing bias is modded offtopic while the opposite is not. Almost as if one side is more insincere than the other these days, not unlike equating a lack of criminal conviction with the absence of action...unless it benefits your political party of course.

    8. Re:Why companies should stay out of politics by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Democrats haven't been able to buy people since Republicans passed the 13th Amendment

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

      Though arguably the H1B visa allow companies to have indentured servants. I'm surprised the Democrats haven't suggested illegals getting three fifths of vote.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    9. Re: Why companies should stay out of politics by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmm well when you support the left wing candidate for POTUS

      I don't remember Google supporting Jill Stein.

      Oh, you meant Clinton? She's centrist, not leftist. Keep trying kiddo, you'll get it never.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Why companies should stay out of politics by gbjbaanb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately the bias is prevalent from the left - but that's because the left-wing media actively encourages it and is mainstream, while the right-wing media is simply ridiculed when they do it. The difference is clear that the media on the left, that gives a free-pass to bad practices from the left is the mainstream.

      What we should be doing is holding up all examples of bad practice, and criticisng it. The left-wing media should be holding the left-leaning companies and individuals to as much rigour as they can to weed out the bad uns. But instead, we know our media is biased and polarised and this only drives society to be even more tribal and encourages "opposition" media to appear to counter it. This state of affairs is really is nobody's best interests except the political activists who want to make elections about tribal loyalty and not policies.

    11. Re: Why companies should stay out of politics by netizen_james · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Rand was simply a moron - her 'objectivism' isn't 'rightwing', it's just a stupid attempt to justify greed and selfishness. The 'collectivism' that the Randians decry is what the rest of us call 'civilization'. If all the Randians were rounded up and put on Madagascar to fend for themselves, they'd all die because to them, cooperation is anathema.

      Yes, Hitler was 'right wing'. Most authoritarians are. No, Stalin was not a leftist. Neither was Castro. They were both authoritarians too.

      If you want to see a 'leftist' nation, you need only look to Norway and Denmark. If you want to see a 'libertarian' nation, you won't find one. Anywhere. Ever. There's a reason for that.

  2. Re:Why exactly does Google by MachineShedFred · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously though, what is the googs doing that would make them seem like suspicious to conservatives?

    They donate lots of money to Democrats.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  3. Regulations by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, basically, reducing regulations only matter when it affects large Republican donors?

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  4. Re: Why exactly does Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I didn't look closely, but my understanding was that Damore was quite liberal, just apparently not the kosher type liberal.

  5. Re:Headline by Bodhammer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Which are the right wingers on this list? https://www.opensecrets.org/se...

    --
    "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
  6. Manipulation of available information by Kagetsuki · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's not just "grassroots conservatives" that are worried about this. Re: the Demore memo, but also the fact Google was contributing to the Clinton campaign, and of course the "american scientist" search results. I'll grand that search result could be an organic result... but the fact we've had multiple engineers stating it's common practice to feed the engine specific data to "help" it find the right data does make me pretty suspicious. You can't deny most people use Google services, so if what they see come up on those services is manipulated for political gain, directly or indirectly, that's a pretty scary thing - especially when you consider there seems to be a large push for a non-meritocratic/anti-technocratic culture within the current ranks of Google employees.

  7. Re:Headline by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    James Woods is about the only conservative actor and he even admitted it hurt his career.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  8. Re:Why exactly does Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No. They have an ever widening ring of censorship that is targeting conservative voices on Youtube. Additionally, it is now known that they have a toxic leftist monoculture that is hostile to conservative workers in their work force that became apparent with the firing of James Damore. Who dared ot ask reasonable questions but felt the full rage of the toxic left because it impinged on their every widening ideology of identity politics that is essentially cult-like now.