Slashdot Mirror
Google CEO Will Testify Before US House on Bias Accusations (reuters.com)
Google CEO Sundar Pichai has agreed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee in November, following the midterm elections. He met with House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and other senior Republicans Friday to discuss accusations that Google is biased against conservatives (a charge the company has denied). From a report: "I think we've really shown that there is bias, which is human nature, but you have to have transparency and fairness," McCarthy said. "As big tech's business grows, we have not had enough transparency and that has led to an erosion of trust and, perhaps worse, harm to consumers." Alphabet's Google unit has repeatedly denied accusations of bias against conservatives. Pichai left the meeting without comment. Pichai wrote in an internal email last week that suggestions that Google would interfere in search results for political reasons were "absolutely false. We do not bias our products to favor any political agenda." [...] Asked if Republicans will push to break up Google, McCarthy said: "I don"t see that." He said the hearing will look at privacy, bias issues, China and other matters.
Maybe start with traditional media companies? Fox, CNN, etc?
"You're full of shit"
Alex Jones stayed online for years and you can still find his insane rants in Google's search results even though he's been kicked off of all the major social networking sites due to his constant attempts to incite violence and death threats towards parents whose children were murdered.
Trump supporters who literally identify themselves as Nazis show up in Google's search results too.
If Google was actually trying to add a left-leaning bias to their search results, they would at least exclude the most extreme right-wing bullshit, but they don't.
Communists are openly discussing terrorist acts on Twitter and not one shit is given,
They cry the loudest when they think they're right.
They cry the loudest when somebody doesn't agree with them.
Google is a public company and doesn't seem to have a basement full of hackers creating content - this is what people are saying.
So live with it.
it's their company and they're not hiding behind common carrier.
I'm sure if they were showing bias against gays or women, you'd be fine with it too, right?
Indeed. No one is forcing anyone to use Google, YouTube, or any of the other services. If those companies want to become some kind of ideological echo chamber and chase away users, that's their own business. No one gets angry at the Mormon church for not having sermons from the Quran.
I suspect that the real angle behind this is a veiled threat of the government considering these platforms to be monopolies, in which case they probably would lose some of their freedom to discriminate on the content that they want to carry. Realistically, it won't even come to that. The government doesn't actually have the will to pursue that and it's the kind of thing that would just get quashed when the parties change power again. This is really just an opportunity for Congress to make speeches and act tough so that they have some good sound bites for their base.
It's just more song and dance and we'll need some new spectacle once the Senate hearings are over.
I'd be interested to hear what others think are news outlets which avoid bias.
I, like most people, read & watch news for two reasons, Anonymous Coward: Facts, and analysis.
Facts are straightforward: "Russia meddled in the American election."
Analysis from experts at reputable news agencies like The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, PBS and The Economist tell me why Russia meddled in the American election - What Putin's goals are, what the endgame is, and what the geopolitical consequences are.
Unless you are an expert yourself and / or have a 16-hour day, facts without analysis are only half the puzzle - Or even less.
it's their company and they're not hiding behind common carrier. It's only a free speech issue when the government censors.
.
Free speech is not the problem here, son.
Bias is used as a tool to influence the opinions of large numbers of people.
Only a fool would conclude that bias is not something that matters.
Bias may be legal in a strict sense, but that doesn't mean bias is not a problem.
By the way, you need to learn how to use the word "it's" correctl, you poorly educated dumbass.
The word "it's" means IT IS.
Conservatives arent afraid of governments taking over every aspect of our lives, theyre afraid of progressive governments taking over every aspect of our lives.
There's no need to regulate them. They can run things how they want.
But there is bias there. It's mostly due to human nature and people preferencing what they believe and living in the social and idealogical bubble they're living in, rather than anything too overt. Google employees, journalism graduates, government bureaucrats and much of social science academics have in common that they demonstrate their political opinions in hard numbers by donating 90% to Democrats, so it's not like there is a big secret about their political leanings not being representative of the country as a whole.
It would be good for them to have more transparency and if a company like Facebook or Google really wants to do more than pay lip service to serving ALL their customers, it would be a good idea for them to reach out and find ways to ensure the process for their internal censorship/tilting is more transparent and that they seek out some ideological diversity in both their fact checkers and their trusted news sources. For their long term growth and potential, it's better for them to avoid taking sides in fights which divide half the country away from wanting to use their services.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Put him in jail along with Hilary.
for at least what? Three presidential elections? I have no doubt Google adjust "trending" and "may interest" you to try to swing votes towards Democrats. An article with three reshares and a +12 does not equal trending enough to come across the feed of a active, been elected to office, following groups of my interest Libertarian. I was making meme's about how Obama and Romney were practically the same guy, far left things do not by any means fit my "interest". In the current day it's pretty clear I'm not on the big media bandwagon, Google is obviously trying to sway me towards big media again, just like Slashdot is trying to convince the science is settled on all things climate change.
Google is guilty as charged.
As to the U.S. government doing something about it? That's complicated. On a pure freedom grounds no. On the other hand they do try to pass themselves off as common carrier in some respects. They are also a public company, meaning they have certain requirements towards the public. To top it off when you get into the shady parts of Google's origins they took a lot of federal money to gather data for the feds, they are a company that has to report to the government simply because the government has funded them so much, some of it above board, some under the table.
Usually I'm all about letting companies/individuals do as they please and have the government leave them alone, I'll chose if I want to do business with them or not. Trust me, it stresses my wife out keeping track of the number of businesses and companies I don't do business with. Google is so deep in bed with the feds all their STDs match, so they're a special case, just like Facebook.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
And why are you so afraid of people pointing it out.
We should investigate, find out factually if they are biased, report those findings and let the people decide if they want to use/trust a biased source. You seem to be afraid of people knowing the truth or not.
Technically Google would not be violating any laws even if they were intentionally politically biased. They are a private company, and private entities can publish any bias they want (barring direct causes of violence or defamation of non-celebrities). We see this with Fox News, for example.
As a hypothetical, what if the CEO directly admitted to having a biased service? What would GOP then do? Anti-trust is about the only remedy in the existing legal bag. But outside of that, GOP's most likely prize would just be in "outing" them.
I suspect, instead, we'll get a more nuanced answer similar to:
Table-ized A.I.
Analysis from experts at reputable news agencies like The New York Times ...
.
The New York Times has a HUGE liberal bias. If you think the analysis you read in the New York Times is even remotely likely to be even-handed, you're living in a dream world.
You make a large assumption that others read news for the same reasons you do. You do not know why others do what they do. Making assumptions that you know why others do what they do makes you look like an idiot. I expect you are an idiot, after reading your post.
because those are protected classes. You can't choose to be gay or a women. You _can_ choose your political beliefs. Hence we protect those classes and not political beliefs.
That said, I'm not opposed to extending protected class status to political beliefs. But remember all those factory owners who fired pro-Obama people? Or how about Amazon attacking Unions? Better get ready for a whole new world of lawsuits against right wing targets if you protect political beliefs.
If I may go off the rails for a bit; for some mind numbing reason we act like the right wing are not in charge of this country, even though they control every branch of every government in the country. I know what it is, it's a tactic pioneered by the Soviets and embraced during Karl Rove's tenure as a Republican strategist: whatever faults you have you accuse the other side of. In this case the right wing is the political majority with virtually all of the power that goes with it (even though they're consistently in the minority when it's time to do polling on issues). So they argue that they're an oppressed minority. It's a distraction, meant to put the left off balance and force them into a defensive posture. It's especially effective because the right wing, through mega-corporations, have bought up virtually all mass media. Again, folks will tell me the media has a left wing bias because Alex Jones got banned, ignoring the non-stop pro-corporate coverage and far right economic policy that comes out of our media. It's just crazy that nobody can put two and two together here....
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Someone of viewpoint A who agrees with A will always say they are not biased against that stinking rotten incorrect viewpoint B. Their views are completely unbiased.
That said, I like to think when I was growing up it was a reasonably unbiased education (but obviously it wasn't). They taught me - it is impossible to write a non-technical paper/essay without any kind of bias. As a responsible reader, the most import thing to do is to pick up and know what that bias is. But it is always there.
It's also a rule of thumb that those who claim to have no bias tend to be the most biased.
it's just a circus to rile their base and distract from economic issues. The one thing the right wing has always been good at, their stock in trade if you will, is manufacturing an enemy to distract from their support of low wages, weak worker protections and weak consumer safety laws. They're on the side of the oligarchs. You need only look at where all their money comes from and their unwillingness to refuse corporate PAC money to prove that.
But I'm just a partisan hack, what the hell to I know? AmIRight?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Always talking about how the government shouldn't be interfering with businesses, but when they don't like what a company does, the dotards get all pissy and all of a sudden need the big bad evil gubmint to help their poor little selves.
Considering political affiliation isn't a protected class, apples to oranges.
I suspect that the real angle behind this is a veiled threat of the government considering these platforms to be monopolies
I think it's much less sophisticated than that - Governments become upset when access to facts becomes painless for citizens.
When Trump claims the "highest number in history" watched his State of the Union, a quick Google search proves he's lying. When the government says breach-of-ethics allegations against the head of the EPA are "lies" a quick Google search proves they are in fact the truth.
Things are further complicated when the lies spread by their supporters in the media - Hannity, Limbaugh et al are quickly dismissed by a quick online search.
Example after example exist to demonstrate government lies that are quickly shattered by citizen searches.
The government tries to obfuscate their frustration with this by using terms like "bias" but that's really not what they're talking about - They're simply concerned about people's ready access to facts, as opposed to their spin.
Why do you think less democratic nations like China attempt to curtail the flow of facts? It's no different.
Can we get them to testify before the House on bias? Pleez?
reCaptcha is like being waterboarded by AI.
The fact there are protected classes at all, and that people who claim they want a classless society demand them should trouble you.
spot on
it's their company and they're not hiding behind common carrier. It's only a free speech issue when the government censors.
Because it's not just "their company" anymore. They've reached a size where no market force can topple them, and thus bias is detrimental to a free society.
How do you know that Google's AI hasn't already turned sentient, decided that the world would be better off if everyone were liberal, and started social engineering as a result>?
That is all.
By the standards of San Francisco and San Jose they all agree they are fair and showing what all their friends agree is 'True."
You dismissed one of the sources listed due to the audience it writes for, not inaccuracies. I would venture that those referencing multiple news sources from different countries have a stronger grip on reality.
Isn't there fairly definitive internal documents and conversations that serve as proof?
They were right.
Probably coming from Hitler's UFOs
A while back James Damore learned firsthand just how biased Google is, just saying...
So no one in DC cares about citizens privacy, nor about the buying and selling of data, nor about backdoor deals with the NSA, nor about supporting the Chinese communist government....no, this congress wants to focus on that whiny, snowflake, and frankly clueless dufus, Damore. Or is it the sad puppy faces and speeches of Sergei at Google HQ after Hillary lost?
Really, Kevin McCarthy (R) , this is important? Of course it's not, more pointless politicking. And Pichai decides to show up to this one and skip the other hearings because he also knows it's a show. No threat of any action (see 1st Amendment). As many have said, there are plenty of other company boardrooms where there were celebrations after Trump won...who's digging into the Disney Corp records, or AT&T or Verizon, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, the list is endless. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Oh, and how about all you fiscal conservatives fix the debt/deficit problem first then deal with your pet projects once that's all wrapped up.
Vote the John Kasich & Jeff Flake ticket in 2020
The algorithms are biased against lies and stupidity - not conservatives directly. If there were more half way intelligent conservatives like Paul Ryan, it wouldn't seem so skewed. Unfortunately (IIRC) he plans to retire and their war heroes are dieing off, so expect more "skewing".
Republican's can't seem to grasp the idea that just because a lot of Google employee's were upset by the results of the election that it doesn't mean that they've changed their product. Google still wants to create general purpose AI, searches, etc. Adding bias defeats that.
Breitbart is biased against gays and women, yet no one is demanding that the government step in.
The market has decided you are scum. Start your own sites and stop complaining. Use some of that Dark Money you send to the 501c4s.
I think it is ridicules that the government is targeting Google. Google needs some competition, but it's not up to this thuggish organization we call government to make happen. It's the job of the free market. There are worse problems to deal with such as the monopolies in the ISP world which socialist governments created by giving these companies monopoly status in the first place back in the 1980s when cable TV was being rolled out. That key act produced the monopoly we have today.
Google american inventors or white inventors
The idea is equal opportunity plus a minimum standard of living. We're not so naive that we don't recognize classifications when they exist.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you're probably getting your ideas of progressivism from right wing hit pieces. It's not an exaggeration to say the media has a strong, right wing, anti-progressive bias. They're all owned by billionaires, so it's not surprising. Go watch Secular Talk, Aronra and look up the Justice Democrats.
Actual progressives stand for a lot more than you've been told, and if you dig in you'll probably find yourself agreeing with 80-90% of them. The key is to make it past the right wing propaganda.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Google operates with certain legal protections that were created by congress back when the internet took off. Back then, lots of content creators wanted to stop these newfangled internet entities from monetizing stuff they had created. There were others who wanted to be able to sue these new internet entities for things like slander.
The deal reached was that companies like Google could not be sued over certain content because they had NO EDITORIAL CONTROL - they were simply a conduit for information - an enabler of communications by others (with those others being theoretically accountable for what they were passing through the internet businesses).
Now, companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter are starting to exercise editorial control (suppressing certain political viewpoints for example). In doing so, they are stepping out of the legal loophole they have always existed within and into the landscape occupied by book, magazine, and newspaper publishers and also occupied by TV stations and radio stations (all of whom have staff lawyers reviewing stuff because they are all subject to being sued over content).
These Internet companies are very dishonestly trying to have it both ways: They want to have a nice happy image for their snowflake leftist users who are frightened by other ideas and by actual free speech, but they still want all those special legal protections that traditional media companies who edit material do not enjoy.
Damore DID NOT "create a hostile work environment". He wrote a memo with very limited distribution which was widely distributed by somebody else who set out to destroy him. If ANYBODY created a hostile work environment, it was that person.
As a basic matter of fact, however, it was clearly the people who pretended to be offended by Damore's memo who created a "hostile work environment" - THEY made such a stink that the CEO cancelled his family vacation and flew back to headquarters to FIRE Damore and warn anybody else about the hazards of free speech. Their collective temper tantrum must have been more spectacular than the typical two-year-old lying on his back thrashing about and screaming (The Google CEO would not have fown home if some kid was screaming in the Google lobby). Damore got NOBODY fired; his "hostility" was so gentle that nobody had ANY MEASURABLE DAMAGE. His critics, however, caused Damore to be fired with their hatred and to apparently be blacklisted so that other firms were unwilling to hire him.
leftists control these companies and are saying "I got mine, and I'm kicking you off or silencing you" and their poorer leftist supporters are saying "people who agree with me are making sure my opinions are heard and suppressing views I don't like, HOORAY!, anybody upset is an [expletive]"
Of course, leftists are typically such bubble people that they exist surrounded by fellow group-thinkers, and they also are often "ends justify the means" types who profess hatred for censorship but then love it when their opponents get censored (while lacking the introspection and basic logic capacity to see the obvious problem).
By the way: when you resort to either screaming or expletives in any discussion you are admitting you have the weaker argument and suspect you are losing.
testify AFTER his political allies take over the congress and decide not to grill him over the manner in which he tampered to get them elected.
Got it.
And Democrats keep insisting that Russia stole the 2016 election for Trump by purchasing a few click-bait ads on Facebook [facepalm].
The ability for anyone to try and look up facts is inherently *against* everything the GOP stands for these days. It's no wonder they'd complain about a bias against them; that's their view of anything that isn't licking their tailpipes zealously.
They've already decided Google was guilty anyways; it'll be yet another spectacle like their defense of Kavanaugh yesterday afternoon.
I've not seen any evidence that the right wing is for low wages. They're against raising the minimum wage, but that's completely different from being against raising wages. They're are also against immigration, which if actually implemented would push wages up. Income tax cuts are also effectively increasing wages, and the right wing is totally for that too.
I've not seen any evidence that the right wing is for low wages.
The right is rabidly anti-union. Unions raise wages for both union members and non-union workers.
They're are also against immigration, which if actually implemented would push wages up.
Only if the economy is zero sum. But a bedrock principle of conservative economics is that healthy economies are not zero sum. Also there has only been one study to find that immigration lowered wages for any class of workers - it found that only those who dropped out of high-school were harmed, everybody else's wages went up. And even that study turned out to be nothing more than cherry-picking from a larger trend-line that was independent from immigration.
Income tax cuts are also effectively increasing wages
Only in isolation. Cutting income taxes also cuts social services that then must be paid for out of pocket on an individual basis in which negotiating leverage is reduced to one person at a time so total costs go up.
And lets not forget the moronic fallacy of trickle-down & supply-side economics.
Here's the thing - you might argue that any one policy plank of the right supports higher wages if you look at it from a certain perspective. But when you aggregate all of their policies together a very clear pattern emerges of fucking the working man. It should be no surprise that the majority of trump voters were affluent, not working-class they know which side their bread is buttered on.
Other than Stripe and Patreon and Apple and Visa and Mastercard and the US State Department and UK Home Office.
If you start up an alternative service, you can expect to get kicked off of every cloud service provider and then DDOSed to death by NATO. Expect the backbones and satellite service providers to start enforcing the same rules that payment processors are already enforcing, and then please tell me how you can begin to build an alternative to Google when you have no network access, no government funding, and no banks will process your payments.
We hate the actions of people who voted for "the worst president ever known to mankind". That they happened to be gullible and ripe for the picking is their own tragedy, but then they decided to make it everyone's tragedy.
And that's not on, working class or not.
Remember when Republican's used to carry on (and on, and on) about taking responsibility for your actions? Remember that? Whatever happened to that? Wasn't that supposed to be a "value" and thus unchangeable, immutable, a bedrock of accountability at the very core of a value system?
And then they voted for a President who has all the moral character of a sea sponge? Hypocrisy, thy name is Republican Voter. Don't you moralize at me you hypocrite.