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.

Comments

Why does google have to be bias free?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe start with traditional media companies? Fox, CNN, etc?

Re:Why does google have to be bias free?

[Tablizer]

There is no such thing as "no political bias". Every stance and non-stance influences or reflects political issues. For example, having a 100% non-censorship position, such as allowing admitted Nazi's, pedophiles, terrorists, and Stalinists to say whatever they want, is a libertarian position, and thus a political decision. (There are different types and degrees of libertarianism, I should point out.)

"Politics" is just organized behavioral and social norms & rules. I suppose you could say you are against any organized enforcement of norms, but then you are an anarchist or stone-age-ist*, which are also political positions.

Being "centrist" is what's commonly considered "non-biased" or "non-partisan". However, centrism is also a political position. (We need more of them; too bad they get no attention because they can't create drama. When was the last time you've seen a mob of "angry centrists"?)

* Barney Rubble for President! Make stones great again! Metal is for cowards! Chuck the Internet and bring back ParrotNet! It's greener!"

Re:Why does google have to be bias free?

[elrous0]

I think it comes down more to the issue of Google and a tiny minority of other Silicon Valley companies being effective monopolies, who actively seek to suppress competition to the point where it becomes almost impossible for a startup to effectively compete on an even playing field. Add to this that this handful of companies are exclusively headquartered in areas known for radically liberal politics and seem to be staffed overwhelmingly with liberal employees (with strong rumors of company cultures where conservative voices are actively drumheaded out).

This has the very scary possibility turning a traditionally open internet into an internet that is now effectively controlled by a small group of monopolies who seem to be increasingly seeking to suppress conservative viewpoints. It's a nasty convergence of monopoly and ideology that could well turn the internet into a giant echo-chamber where even mainstream right-of-center voices are all but completely silenced. And that doesn't sit well not only with conservatives, but a lot of classic liberals as well.

Re:Why does google have to be bias free?

[Crashmarik]

Oh I thought you were talking about CNN
Fox is actually pretty fair and balanced by comparison but feel free rave on.

Re:Why does google have to be bias free?

[BlindWillieMcTell]

Can anyone name a media company, ever, that was without bias? One will do.

Re:Why does google have to be bias free?

[coastwalker]

Looking at the US from the rest of the world it is clear that whatever the theoretical difference between the two parties that get into government they are both run by wealthy patronage. The hatred in the media between the two groups is highly amusing given that it is there to keep public attention away from the fact that the rich run America and the politicians are irrelevant. Fox news is full of blatant lies, that is statements that are factually untrue, CNN is full of complaints about violent acts by the powerful that the powerful don't like hearing. America is a global joke.

Re:Why does google have to be bias free?

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at the US from the rest of the world it is clear that whatever the theoretical difference between the two parties that get into government they are both run by wealthy patronage.

There was time when the Republicans were the party of rich people and the Democrats were the party of poor people. But, yes, these days, the Republicans are the party of horrible rich old men and the Democrats are the party of horrible rich old women. And poor people in the USA are taking it in both ends, so to speak.

Re:Why does google have to be bias free?

[TheGratefulNet]

the R's are at their worst time in history, with the worst president ever known to mankind; they are desparate to deflect and to try to keep their base happy.

there is no other reason. none. grandstanding is a fucking waste of time when real shit has to be dealt with. but like I said, they don't want to have light shine on their bad shit, so they change the subject whenever they can.

basically, this specific thing is 'waaah! you are hurting our base's feelings!'. yeah, well, grow a pair of balls, you fuckwads. time to reap what you have been sowing the past few years.

Re:Why does google have to be bias free?

[drinkypoo]

Being "centrist" is what's commonly considered "non-biased" or "non-partisan". However, centrism is also a political position. (We need more of them; too bad they get no attention because they can't create drama. When was the last time you've seen a mob of "angry centrists"?)

We have shitloads of them in government. We call them "Democrats". There's only a handful of leftists among them.

Re:Why does google have to be bias free?

[malkavian]

There's loads of pretty left in Democrats. Identity politics is a very left wing ideology, and it's pretty much endemic in the Democrats. Actually, I consider it their albatross, without that around their necks, and actually having a good hard look at things outside of that lens, I'd be more in agreement with you.

Re: Why does google have to be bias free?

[Tablizer]

Trollbot set to 11. Cool!

Re:Why does google have to be bias free?

[Tablizer]

It does seem there are more moderate Democrats than moderate Republicans in DC. GOP is better at gerrymandering, for one. (Or at least more willing to push it to embarrassing limits.)

Remember, ACA was mostly invented by a conservative think-tank. Republicans only "hated" it when a Democrat implemented it nation-wide. Anthropomorphic climate change is also a mostly centrist position. That 90%+ of climatologists would lie is a silly mass conspiratorial claim.

Re:Why does google have to be bias free?

[serviscope_minor]

This has the very scary possibility turning a traditionally open internet into an internet that is now effectively controlled by a small group of monopolies who seem to be increasingly seeking to suppress conservative viewpoints.

So it seems like the attitude that unfettered business is good and reglation is bad is only up to the point where it affects conservatives.

Re:Why does google have to be bias free?

[SuricouRaven]

Even striving to be without bias can itsself be a form of bias. It's the sort of bias that leads to, for example, giving equal air time and respect to the medical establishment and an anti-vaccination campaigner. The producer can be satisfied that they have given both sides equal treatment and as such are demonstrating no bias, but the picture the audience puts together is still inaccurate.

Re:Why does google have to be bias free?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I mean, you can "No True Scotsman" if you like, but there are definitely biased news sources and unbiased ones.

Re:Why does google have to be bias free?

[BlindWillieMcTell]

I mean, you can "No True Scotsman" if you like, but there are definitely biased news sources and unbiased ones.

OK, so let's hear it. Which are the unbiased news sources? Just give us a couple of names.

Meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

Communists are openly discussing terrorist acts on Twitter and not one shit is given,

Re:Meanwhile...

[swillden]

I support deplatforming all extremists. Nazis and commies alike.

Deplatforming is a euphimism for silencing. I support freedom of speech.

Re:Meanwhile...

[meglon]

https://xkcd.com/1357/

Re: Meanwhile...

[astrofurter]

Hey, just because Google is now openly evil, doesn't mean ALL Googledouches are necessarily in favor of censorship. Maybe shillden means what he says. If all we can agree on is freedom of speech - then let agree on freedom of speech. That's a good start.

Re:Meanwhile...

[Livius]

I support deplatforming all extremists. Nazis and commies alike.

Quite a lot of people define 'extremist' as anyone who disagrees with them.

Some of them even define 'extremist' as anyone who even feels differently that they do.

Re:Meanwhile...

[mjwx]

I support deplatforming all extremists. Nazis and commies alike.

Deplatforming is a euphimism for silencing. I support freedom of speech.

No it isn't.

Nowhere does the freedom of speech mean that you're entitled to whatever platform you like and however you like it... If people are telling you to go away, that is them exercising their right to free speech.

And yes, the fewer Nazis or Racists out there, the better.

Re:Meanwhile...

[swillden]

Nowhere does the freedom of speech mean that you're entitled to whatever platform you like and however you like it

Certainly not. But deplatforming doesn't mean that no one is obligated to give you a platform, it means mobs rising up to forcibly reverse your invitation to speak, merely because some of them might be offended.

And yes, the fewer Nazis or Racists out there, the better.

I certainly agree. But I disagree that violent suppression of their political speech is either necessary or effective.

Re:And so what if they do?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:And so what if they do?

[alvinrod]

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.

Re:Google is OBVIOUSLY lying !

[CohibaVancouver]

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.

Re:And so what if they do?

[_Sharp'r_]

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.

Having been on Google +

[pecosdave]

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.

Re:Having been on Google +

[drinkypoo]

G+ has so far faithfully shown me everything from everyone I am following, unlike Facebook. I follow The Free Thought Project there for example, even though I am not a libertarian or anarchist, because he helps me keep tabs on government misdeeds. And he's got source links so I can go read the original story and decide what I think for myself.

If so, then what?

[Tablizer]

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:

Because we grew so fast, early on, Google didn't monitor many of our services very well and thus political bias from individual employees may have indeed slipped in. I apologize to the American people for this.

We've since been creating, tuning, and enforcing ever-clearer public guidelines and are holding all our units accountable for following them.

Extreme and repeat offenders will be fired, and minor offenders will be given further training and mentoring. Any political censorship or filtering outside of the guidelines will also be subject to discipline or termination.

Now, these guidelines may have what some call a political angle to them, such as banning ethnically or gender-related offensive comments in discussion services and social networks. As a private organization, we have a legal right to create and enforce such guidelines, and I stand behind them.

In summary, I cannot promise our published guidelines are free of politically-related decisions, but I do promise we will enforce our guidelines as fairly and consistently as is practically possible so that if you use a Google service, you know what you are getting and know what to expect.

No I would not

[rsilvergun]

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....

Re:No I would not

[epyT-R]

I thought the whole idea of progressivism was to build a classless society. You can't do that when you're arbitrarily drawing lines around groups of people based on arbitrary, supposedly irrelevant attributes, then deeming them oppressed or oppressor based on those attributes.

Re:No I would not

[swb]

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 you mean, but there's a whole class of left wing people in senior managerial roles, in addition to the legal and other professional fields.

I have two good friends (a couple), one works as a business consultant and one has senior job with a healthcare company. They both of MBAs, live in an upscale suburb in a house with an in-ground swimming pool. And they are both liberal as hell.

I think it's super ironic to sit in their in-ground pool with them, drinking top shelf liquor, and listen to them talk about how great the Democrats/Hillary/Bernie are. They are not bullshitting, either, they really believe it.

I mean, they are not "in control" like some CEO or something, but they are the kind of people who can call politicians and get answers and their money == influence at some level, yet the hew to serious far-left ideas and causes despite a lifestyle that it definitely not left wing.

Re:No I would not

[Crashmarik]

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.

Really ?
Need to talk to Bruce Jenner, he's so heroic / sarcasm
Or Richard Raskin nee Renee Richards (who in his autobiography said growing a beard suppressed his transgenderism)

Re: No I would not

[epyT-R]

Actually, you're half correct. The Christian right operated(s) much like the progressive left does today.

Both love big government and large institutions, which allow them to impose blasphemy laws, morality policing, witchhunts etc on as many as possible, in as many life contexts as possible. Progressives have their own form (eg hate speech/'check your privilege'/rape hysteria) and target different groups, but functionally they are the same. Both have proven themselves divisive, oppressive, illiberal power grabs within western society.

An important difference between them is in which has ascendancy at the moment. If you were to ask them, each would point at the other and claim victimhood. Instead, find out which one currently supports free speech and which one currently wants to curtail it. Those without are the ones being silenced by those who do have it. Which is defended by the mainstream culture and news outlets? Which is silenced/demonized?

Both are also enemies of rationality and science when they don't support the standing ideology. This is what makes both dangerous for the future of western society. I hope we survive this new onslaught from progressives like we did the 'Moral Majority.'

Re:No I would not

[epyT-R]

That's right. I trying to point out that hypocrisy.

Re:No I would not

[epyT-R]

These people are the useful idiots. They will be the first to go when the purges start.

Re:No I would not

[malkavian]

Protected class is an arbitrary bounded set. You can't choose to be born male, straight or with any genetic predisposition towards identifying with a political grouping, and there do seem to be genetic components at play.
To create "protected classes" is to draw arbitrary boundaries around what you're going to "protect" (i.e. you're actually saying "It's fine, even virtuous, to attack these groups which are the inverse set of this" based on an entirely political construct).
Protected class should be "human" (until we discover higher forms of life, or just plain get more friendly with the rest of the animals around and extend more protections to them too).

Re:No I would not

[BrianMarshall]

...a classless society of victims.

If we're going to look at the motives for this act

[rsilvergun]

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?

Re:And so what if they do?

[CohibaVancouver]

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.

Maybe the AI is trying social engineering

[frank_adrian314159]

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>?

California Bias

[Zorro]

By the standards of San Francisco and San Jose they all agree they are fair and showing what all their friends agree is 'True."

Re:California Bias

[lrichardson]

Google isn't anti-conservative. For 99.999999% of search results, their algorithms work simply on the facts presented.

"And reality has a well-known liberal bias."

With all the bad aspects of Google, it's this?

[edi_guy]

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

Just because they're upset

[jader3rd]

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.

Re:Just because they're upset

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Everything republicans accuse others of doing is really a confession of what they would do if given the opportunity.

Re:Wait, what

[GameboyRMH]

Nope. There is a leak of some internal meeting where the employees were fretting over Trump like decent non-deplorable people, and even one where some employees discussed intentionally biasing search results, but zero evidence that the bias made it into the final product. Unless you count hiding factually incorrect conspiracy nonsense as "bias." It would be fair to say that Google is "biased" against post-truth nonsense.

Re:The only proper response

[malkavian]

Patriarchy is a social theory, not a scientific one (the two are extremely different). Some of them are more valid than others, and the analytical backing for "patriarchy" is extremely lacking, and predominant only in a very left ideology. Some social hypotheses have led to the deaths of millions.
They're interesting as philosophical debating points, but the problem is that people are taking a largely philosophical exercise with very limited frames of reference and treating it as axiomatic across wider frames, and acting on that.
Affirmative action actually detracts by taking away achievement from those capable (both in their eyes, and in the eyes of those around). A distortion of achievements by efforts in this way need to be done extremely carefully. These days, they're not, so much.

I'm pretty much a centrist. Both left and right have the better ideas from time to time, and when a good idea crops up, I applaud it on merit (as best I can determine from my viewpoint, and as many other competing ones as I'm able to jam into my grey matter). Also, both sides have extremely dangerous people.

You thought wrong

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:The only proper response

[serviscope_minor]

I'm pretty much a centrist. Both left and right have the better ideas from time to time

You see to me that should not be "I'm a centrist" and more of "I'm not a complete idiot". Even if yu lean fairly far to the left or right and you have a braing attached you should be able to see that the other camp has worthwhile ideas sometimes and your own camp sometimes has really stupid ideas.

It's a sad indictment of the level of discourse that "centrist" is now associated with "willing to consider multiple alternatives".

Also, both sides have extremely dangerous people.

Sure, if you go far enough they meet round the back.

Re:If we're going to look at the motives for this

[djinn6]

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.