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?

[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.

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: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: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.

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."

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

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: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.