Slashdot Mirror
Google CEO Sundar Pichai Is Headed To Washington This Week To Discuss Censorship, China (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Google CEO Sundar Pichai will be present at a private meeting with top Republican lawmakers this Friday to discuss the company's controversial plans to relaunch a search product in China and perceived liberal bias of search results, according to a report from The Wall Street Journal. According to the WSJ, Attorney General Jeff Sessions plans to meet with state attorneys general on Tuesday to discuss Google's alleged censorship of conservatives. Tech firms have denied the existence of liberal bias in products, and Google has pushed back against key Trump inaccuracies, but it sounds as if Pichai will be forced to answer questions nonetheless. The meeting is being organized by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). Late last week, Pichai sent an email to employees, which was obtained by The New York Times, in which he stated outright that Google has never influenced search results for political purposes and has no plans to do so in the future.
Pichai also plans to attend a public hearing later this year held by the House Judiciary Committee following the November midterm elections, after Google co-founder and Alphabet CEO Larry Page notably declined to show up to a Senate Intel Committee hearing on election interference earlier this month. In addition to mending relationships over Page's absence, Pichai will also be addressing Google's plans to relaunch a search product for the Chinese market, a move that has resulted in widespread criticism given the likelihood such a product would be heavily censored and would aid in China's use of information control to maintain social and political order.
Pichai also plans to attend a public hearing later this year held by the House Judiciary Committee following the November midterm elections, after Google co-founder and Alphabet CEO Larry Page notably declined to show up to a Senate Intel Committee hearing on election interference earlier this month. In addition to mending relationships over Page's absence, Pichai will also be addressing Google's plans to relaunch a search product for the Chinese market, a move that has resulted in widespread criticism given the likelihood such a product would be heavily censored and would aid in China's use of information control to maintain social and political order.
Tech firms have denied the existence of liberal bias in products
A liberal bias might be a good thing; at least it would err on the side of free speech. It's the far leftist bias that's a problem. If you don't know the difference . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Google is pretty much spitting in the face of the Left,
On the one hand they champion Leftists Causes.
On the other, they are enabling a government that would see most Leftists sent to work camps and the causes they champion extinguished.
Are you a support of the LBGTBQWERTY agenda? In China, those people are sent to work camps.
A big Environmental supporter? Don't try protesting Chinese pollution or it's the work camps for you.
Free Speech? Forget about it. Google will see to it that the Government knows what you said, who you said it to, and where to find you and they will punish you.
Good bet that Google helped them with their Social Score thing they have going now.
Make no mistake, the SJW side of Google is a sham meant to keep you morons happy.
It's amazing how everything that doesn't agree with conservative political opinions somehow equals liberal bias. ....
Strawman much?
And it's not a liberal bias, ti's a leftist, objectively pro-totalitarian bias.
Because Google would just love to implement totalitarian thought suppression for the USA and President Hillary! just like they're getting paid to do by the Chinese Communists.
After all, it's the LEFT that created the term "no-platforming"
Because when all you have is poverty-producing stale economic us-against-them bullshit stuck in the 19th century, you have to shut the other guys up.
It's amazing how everything that doesn't agree with conservative political opinions somehow equals liberal bias.
It cuts both ways.
Progressives: This woman is a survivor of sexual assault! She must be allowed to speak! All women must be believed!
Republicans: OK. Let her come testify. How is next week? Her place or ours?
Progressives: How dare you demand that she speak!
Republicans: ??
Progressives: See?!?!? They don't believe her?
Republicans: What about the supposed witnesses that can't back up the claims (even though the accuser said they would back up the claim) and what about the dozens of women who support the accused?
Progressives: Ignore them! All women must be believed! What we meant to say was that all women must believed so long as what they say brings harm to men; women who say things that don't harm men or who even suggest that men should be allowed to defend themselves when accused are not to be believed because they are really just tools of the patriarchy! (but we didn't say that the first time because it doesn't have the same ring to it and protesters would have a hard time fitting all onto a sign.)
Republicans and even some Democrats: ??
Never mind the fact that most people in the country are demonstrably not conservatives and should reasonably be expected to see things a different way.
The country is about evenly split. It stands to reason then that progressives should see stuff they "disagree" with about half the time and conservatives should see stuff they "disagree" with half the time. That is demonstrably not the case. There is way more pro gun control and pro abortion content on Youtube, just for instance. In fact, if you try to put pro gun or pro life content up on YouTube, it is likely to be removed as hate speech. That is the sort of thing that causes rational people to conclude that there is a clear bias.
Not to mention that being conservative (or liberal) has no inherent relationship to objective reality or factual accuracy.
That is so true that it is scary.
$diety forbid that search results accurately provide results that reflect this fact.
They don't. Hence why some people are frustrated.
Should Juanita Broaddrick be believed?
According to the Clintons, no. According to the DNC, no.
Should Mary Jo Kopechne be believed?
According to the DNC, no.
So what is it? Are women to be believed or not. They appear to be in a quagmire of saying all abuse of women should be believed but having besmirched a number of women who were abused by their friends.
I think it's reasonable and honest to call their web services unbiased. They only censor "conservatives" for sufficiently broad, goose-steppey definitions of "conservative." They'll never censor you for calling for limited government, supply-side economics, strict abortion laws or loose gun laws.
Hate speech has a reasonably specific definition. If you post holocaust denial, calls for genocide, calls for violence against people by sexual orientation, etc, then you'll get banned. If you use the platforms for harassment you'll also get banned, and courts need not be involved.
You'll never find a case of "conservative speech" being censored by Facebook/Twitter/Google unless the person making the claim defines "conservative" as including viewpoints that conservatives actively avoided public association with just 3-4 years ago. So are open white nationalists of various kinds to be explicitly and publicly welcomed under the "conservative" tent? Choose.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel