Hacker News Reader

Comment by tbabb | Hacker News Reader

Since when does the government get to police ideological speech, or complain about "bias"? Google could in principle make its results insanely left-leaning and the first amendment should protect them. Are we going to let the government choose which results get suppressed to suit its own needs?

They must be very careful not to let the narrative become "we don't bias our results, we swear!" (even if it's true) because that validates the notion that the government is allowed to complain about it, and puts the burden on them to prove it. Their position should be a very firm "don't tell us what to f*cking do."

View on HN

Google's power today is far greater than Microsoft's ever was in the 90s, and yet they had to sit through years of antitrust trials. Now we have Republicans arguing for fair treatment and threatening the use of the FTC...while Democrats (the traditional antitrust party) have sat on their hands over the past decade on these issues. Presumably, as far as I can tell, neither party has any particular morals. They're for things that are good for their base and against things that are bad for their base. And in this case, a left-leaning tech elite is good for Democrats...so we're not hearing a peep of antitrust talk from the Dems.

> while Democrats have sat on their hands over the past decade

Well, except for when they didn't. A simple search reminds us of this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/ftc-to-an...

"Google emerged from nearly two years of intense federal scrutiny Thursday by convincing the Federal Trade Commission that even though rivals may suffer as the company continually refines its search engine, consumers often win through better, faster, more valuable answers to their queries."

This also ignores more recent requests from Democrats to look into Google:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/06/04...

"The new complaint comes from Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, a progressive in the upper ranks of the Democratic National Committee. In a letter to the Federal Trade Commission dated May 31, Ellison urged the watchdog agency to take a closer look at Google and its parent company, Alphabet, given that European regulators recently found that the search giant harmed its rivals and fined it $2.7 billion.

“The FTC should determine whether Alphabet has engaged in similar conduct in the United States and whether such conduct violates the FTC Act,” he wrote."

Those are just two cases I found in searches.

I wouldn't call this sitting on your hands.

> ...so we're not hearing a peep of antitrust talk from the Dems.

We are. It's just getting drowned out by everything else that is happening.

Those are good finds, but none of this scrutiny compares to what Microsoft got in the 90s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... That the Obama-stacked FTC did not take Google to trial is sort of telling.

You got one company, presiding over 90% of the search on the web: http://www.visualcapitalist.com/this-chart-reveals-googles-t...

Might as well call Google the Ministry of Truth. They sit in a very powerful position over information and influence. China understands this, that's why they tightly control their search results.

Anyone arguing that one company should have so much influence without probably being subject to some sort of oversight or regulation, is naive at best.

> Those are good finds, but

nothing.

Your claim wasn't that they didn't receive enough scrutiny. Your claim was that people haven't done anything.

You lied, or at best, are seriously misinformed, and got called out for it, and now you are moving the goal post trying to pretend like you weren't wrong and ignorant. Just admit it. You were wrong, you didn't know, and yeah, they are trying to do something, but haven't found anything yet, and even in 2018, they are calling for investigations.

What more do you want? Do you want them to NOT investigate or ask for investigations?

The FTC chooses who they really go after and who they don't. And that's at their discretion. It's not a lie that the FTC has done nothing. They have glazed over on the fact that Google owns 90%+ of the search engine market. That's a monopoly. The Democrats of the early 20th century would have gone ape shit over a company with the size and power of Google. Take a look at FDR's actions, for example:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/word-mo...

Google makes Ma Bell look like a tiny tyke by comparison. Their position and influence over the modern internet is in a word, scary. There's no check on their power, and the Obama administration did nothing to check said power. I don't care what rubber stamps or certificate of approvals they got. Google is a monopoly. It's fine if the Democrats have abandoned that principle. Totally fine. But don't call that analysis dishonest.

Also, I'm not the only one mentioning this:

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/348217-the-...

https://newrepublic.com/article/144694/democrats-face-import...

I hate to argue where you've said so much that's right, but neither party is really concerned about what's good for their base. They are concerned about what keeps them in power. Sometimes that is about doing what's good for your base, so they keep on voting for you, but sometimes you shaft your base to enlarge, enrich, or strengthen your kingdom. But in the end there are no statesmen — just power-hungry opportunists.

Being left-leaning is not cause for antitrust. Making your argument a false equivocation. Should Google be subject to antitrust trials? I would say yes, but not because of a left or right leaning bias in their search results.

I think it's their 90% dominant position over the search market, mobile, advertising, and online video that should be subject to antitrust trials... As for the left/right leaning bias, I think that's all part of the same banana. Their powerful position gives them the flexibility to lean whatever way they choose with few, if any, market repercussions.

Being the best in the market isn’t an antitrust issue.

There isn’t any credible alternative to Google because they’re head and shoulders above everyone else.

There are other search engines, they just don’t measure up.

its not just that google has a search engine, they also own youtube, which plays a huge role into how people are getting their news today, as people watch less and less television.

bobdole123456's point is that monopolies aren't illegal but abuse of monopoly power is illegal (you're being downvoted because you do not explicitly address that fact).

But I actually think you raise an extremely interesting question: does pushing a political agenda using your monopoly position constitute an abuse of monopoly power?

The advent of privately controlled monopolistic forums is somewhat new. I don't think it's at all obvious how the spirit of anti-trust law should be extended in the age of platforms...

We're in new territory.

>Being left-leaning is not cause for antitrust....

As horrible as this may sound, it is a cause for anti trust break up when those in power are right leaning.

I mean, let's not split hairs here. As a matter of pragmatic reality, that's pretty much what it comes down to.

This is totally beside the point. Antitrust law governs market dominance and manipulation of market competition. It has nothing to do with political speech. If it did, Fox News would be in serious trouble!

Disagree. Left leaning companies constantly get hit by legislation from left leaning politicians. See Amazon and BEZOS act for example. Airbnb and city legislations is another example.

I think the problem would be if their Search aspect were to be classified as a utility, then they would have to be more careful of their results manipulation.

So long as they are not regulated as such, then I don’t think the gov should get involved. But then again, that raises the question, should google be allowed lawfully to, say, supress all topics around Atheism, or Christmas or Hanukah or Russian meddling, if their management and ownership changed to one even more manipulative?

> I think the problem would be if their Search aspect were to be classified as a utility

People have been writing this, but I'm curious what they mean, as there is no single legal "Utility" classification that could be put on something like google or facebook.

Is there a specific legal approach people are talking about or is it just the commonly understood meaning of "utility" they're referring to?

Example: You can't shut off somebody's electricity or water because they are a bad person, or have expressed unorthodox opinions. But you can shut off their twitter, their email, their web search, their facebook, their linked-in, stop processing payments for them (potentially cutting them off from their livelihood). You can cut them off from their digital identity and shut them out of the digital "public" in a manner of speaking. When that happens right now today, people hand-wave it away because "X is a private company they can do what they want." Never minding the fact that X has become how almost everybody addresses/interacts with the rest of the public digitally, or how X has ALL their email data, and many important documents etc Getting locked out of these things is not life threatening in the way that no water is, but it can essentially delete somebody from the "public" with almost no recourse.

Many years ago, the same was true of phone books. The publishers of those were, as far as I am aware, free to delist whomever they pleased for any reason.

I'm not aware phone books being regulated as utilities.

IIRC you had to pay to not appear in the phone book.

I think the main point is not to get bogged down in whether or not phone books are this or that, or how legacy media relates to the internet era etc.

The point i'm making is not : "Do you sympathize with 'bad guys'?"

it's more: "Would you want whats happening to 'bad guys' to happen to you?".

The utility company will turn off your services for failure to pay, a violation of their ToS. Twitter/Facebook/Google/whomever will suspend your account for violating their terms of service. What's the difference?

A usual TOS relationship with a utility isn't politically charged.

The important line that is being crossed here is that you can get banned from Twitter/Facebook/Google/whomever for saying something that is not illegal but is in the opinion of the company objectionable.

No utility has the power to disconnect me if I do something they think is objectionable with their service. And that goes to the heart of what people seem to want from "regulating as a utility" (a phrase that is terrifying in its vagueness) - they want freedom to voice unpopular opinions and let those who agree, agree.

But does that extend to advocating harassment? That's what Jones was accused of doing. Does harassment count as an unpopular opinion?

I have no idea what Jones was doing, not being an InfoWars viewer or following the story closely.

But, I feel under no threat of being disconnected by my water provider because /they think/ that I am harassing someone.

For Jones in particular, I believe the appropriate channels of response are for the person being harassed to: (1) Sue him (2) Respond clearly.

The tech majors, who have mounting leaked evidence that their management is politically active in the workplace, should not be arbitrating what a publisher does. If they do, then they are publishers themselves, in which case they should be regulated differently and their status as publishers made very public.

"I have no idea what Jones was doing"

Then it seems very bad faith for you to be using him as an example.

"For Jones in particular, I believe the appropriate channels of response are for the person being harassed to: (1) Sue him (2) Respond clearly."

This is simply not true. Further, if you're Twitter, and you have users that are harassing other users, that makes those users less wanting to use your platform. And you have other people that catch wind that Twitter is doing nothing about harassment, and now very few people want to use Twitter.

"The tech majors, who have mounting leaked evidence that their management is politically active in the workplace"

[Citation Needed]

"If they do, then they are publishers themselves, in which case they should be regulated differently and their status as publishers made very public."

I disagree. Asking someone to leave who is harassing other users is not causing themselves to be publishers.

Harassment is not illegal. I believe the parent’s point is that a utility seevice can’t disconnect you because of vague allegations of legal behaviour such as “harassment”.

Harassment is not illegal.

That’s simply not true.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/

Ok, well, Twitter harassment is not illegal. The link you point to only mentions physical harassment (e.g. followig someone, making them reasonably feel unsafe, assaulting them). Harassing speech (and hate speech) is legal (in the US).

Ok, well, Twitter harassment is not illegal. The link you point to only mentions physical harassment (e.g. followig someone, making them reasonably feel unsafe, assaulting them). Harassing speech (and hate speech) is legal (in the US).

In fact it specifically mentions anonymous communications in a variety of forms.

Either (a) communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or (b) causes a communication to be initiated by mechanical or electronic means or otherwise with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or Makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate communication;...

I can only recommend a more in-depth reading for you. At the very least you owe it to yourself to have basic knowledge of the laws in question before you go about declaring what’s legal and illegal.

Ah, interesting, I didn’t realize there were so many exemptions to free speech. Thanks! So basically all IRS letters are “illegal” :)

Electricity and water are pretty important to be able to live. Being able to rant on Twitter isn't.

The right to vote and the right to free speech are also not essential to life, but we defend both as pillars of a free society.

People blocked on Twitter are free to host their own websites with their own speech.

I really don’t believe just because Twitter is popular it’s suddenly mandatory that it host any and all content. If hacker news became as popular as twitter could the government suddenly start compelling HN to stop censoring off topic conversation and host any and all posts?

Twitter was created by people to serve a certain purpose and for certain conversations and they are within their rights to control the content they host on their machines and on their site.

>People blocked on Twitter are free to host their own websites with their own speech.

On paper this is true, but network effects mean you won't be able to interact with the general public UNLESS the general public also moves to your platform as well, which is fairly unlikely.

Let's put it this way, let's say George Soros bought it. He then directed the employees who didn't quit to ban all people who are not leftists.

Or, let's say on the other hand the Koch brothers buy it and again, direct employees who have not quit to ban all non-conservative posters.

Would that be okay because they don't owe it to anyone to be a medium for everyone?

Yeah that’d be okay.

Someone else could create a more neutral site since there’d certainly be a void to fill.

Then, I'm pretty sure your opinion is in the minority. There would be outrage from either side, if affected, I'm sure.

Where is the ambiguity? In your example, a private company was purchased by a private individual and now they legally own it... why shouldn't they legally be allowed to do whatever they want with it?

Didn't someone make an alt-right twitter and an alt-right Reddit? No-one's complaining - those who don't like it keep away.

"An important legal requirement for common carrier as public provider is that it cannot discriminate..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier

"Net neutrality is the principle that [providers] treat all data on the Internet equally, and not discriminate"

"In a "dumb network", the endpoints are thought to be where the intelligence lies, and as such, proponents argue that the network should leave the management and operation of communications and data transfer to the end users, not a government bureau or Internet company."

"Supporters of net neutrality... want to ensure that [companies] cannot screen, interrupt or filter Internet content without a court order."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

Same framework as net neutrality except with speech/content instead of bandwidth. Of course, net neutrality isn't en vogue with current lawmakers.

But the problem is that it is content and not simply bandwidth. Bandwidth is objectively measured, content isn’t.

Maybe crawling should be a common utility, with the ranking being left to individual competition, similar to fiber lines owned by utilities and then companies being free to lease those and deal with end customers. As it is, many websites are hostile to new crawlers that don't already have lots of traffic to bring them in exchange, so it's difficult to offer an alternative to Google, even if you can get over the high minimum bar of being able to crawl a significant fraction of the web.

Isn't that just creating a duplicate internet then - one that taxpayers have to pay to host instead? That creates a ton of issues around being forced to pay for hosting other people's speech. For example, I don't want to pay to host anti-vaxxer site information but because of the first amendment, this public service can't remove it.

Why would you care about the cost to store a copy of sites you disagree with? It's a crawl, it's not the government making value judgements one way or the other. I'm sure the library of congress also contains material you disagree with.

I don't think it would count as a duplicate internet any more than archive.org would.

The library of congress is curated by Selection officers for material value, the internet is not.

I didn't mean to say that the library of congress was indiscriminate, just that it likely also contains material that you disagree with. And that that doesn't really matter, because it's not the purpose of the repository to contain only non-controversial material.

Without an example, I can't agree with you, and no - the point is that the library of congress is curated content, the internet is not.

Old books from the 1800s with very outdated views on race, sex, etc would be an obvious example.

Edit: and why is curation relevant to the question of whether there should be a common crawl that can be accessed by all, a publicly hosted mirror of the web that can be used to create competing search engines?

I really don't care about old books from the 1800s.

This is the obvious reason why they have to take the government seriously. The stakes are that they end up heavily regulated.

On a side note, I find it very ironic that a community who so passionately embrace net neutrality are so quick to cry 1A and liberty when it comes to political censorship and bias by the huge internet companies.

Now you've shown that what they desire is a slippery slope for later.

> So long as they are not regulated as such

And to think, it's the Republican Party that's been anchoring for removing any pretense of net neutrality.

But now it's Bad(TM). Or at least Unfair(TM).

> Google could in principle make its results insanely left-leaning and the first amendment should protect them

This is a far too simplistic and superficial analysis. Yes, Google could decide to position themselves as a publisher and claim the corresponding right to editorialize their content, but this would mean accepting a publishers' responsibility for all of the content. Historically, Google and others have been immune as a result of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields them from responsibility for libel, defamation, threats, falsehoods, child porn, fair housing violations, etc.

They could choose to become a publisher in the eye of the law, but then they would have to play by the rules of a publisher. They can't simultaneously be protected as a publisher by freedom of the press and claim immunity as not a publisher.

> Google could in principle make its results insanely left-leaning and the first amendment should protect them. Are we going to let the government choose which results get suppressed to suit its own needs?

That's the part that confuses me. Why not embrace the bias. Those who think that Google is biased are not going to be convinced by the a PR statement saying "we are impartial, etc". They've already made up their mind.

It's like with the leaked video we discussed recently. Was anyone surprised by the reaction? Not me, it was exactly what I expected. But their PR response to the leak is what bothered me:

> Nothing was said at that meeting, or any other meeting, to suggest that any political bias ever influences the way we build or operate our products.

Why not just be brave and come out and say "we support these values and not those values, we are not a neutral platform, please move on to another service if you don't agree".

> Why not just be brave and come out and say "we support these values and not those values, we are not a neutral platform, please move on to another service if you don't agree".

Presumably because telling half of your users to fuck off is a terrible financial decision?

I don't know if it'd be half, I think less. And also where would they go? Most will still be "Googling" things, driving with Google maps and have an Android phone with location turned on at all times. On the other hand it will make their most devout users, including the majority of their employees quite proud and even more more dedicated.

Here executives were crying on camera saying "we lost". I don't think many believe they are then going to turn around wipe their tears, sit down at their desks and be impartial when deciding which news to filter, which videos to demonetize, which charities to support. I don't think they will be, and they shouldn't. They should be more brave and stand up for what they believe. It will make them seem more honest and they might even recover some of the PR image they lost recently.

Because it legitimizes a false narrative.

Sorry I don't follow what's the false narrative?

That Google is censoring conservative viewpoints.

You'll never find a conservative banned on Google or Twitter or Facebook for saying they believe in trickle-down economics, or that they want a smaller government.

Google/etc have policies on hate speech and false content, and for some reason banning those things is now considered a political bias.

You'll never find a conservative banned on Google or Twitter or Facebook for saying they believe in trickle-down economics, or that they want a smaller government.

Fact: You will find such people subjected to strikes and bans on YouTube and Twitter who are simply ideologically opposed to the goals of Intersectionality and Feminism on the basis of philosophy rooted in "smaller government."

I don't see what intersectionality or feminism have to do with smaller government.

Enforcing Equality of Outcome requires increased government infringement.

So is enforcing Child Pornography laws. Is that a bad thing too?

I'd like to see a source on that.

Example?

I'm with you, I've yet to see actual evidence of political bias in a Google product. I.e. search, etc.

I've heard conservatives say they're uncomfortable working there because "everyone" is liberal, but they also live in San Francisco California, where "everyone" is liberal, so that's hardly Google's fault.

The way in which YouTube commenters are demonetized is very pointedly politically biased.

The only evidence I've seen of this is where hate-speech automatically triggers filters that causes videos to be demonetized, and after the uploader makes the case that no, this was (for example) a report on hate speech usage and therefore should be allowed, the video is re-monetized.

For example: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/03/youtu...

I have yet to see evidence of actual enforced liberal bias by youtube.

I have yet to see evidence of actual enforced liberal bias by youtube.

It depends on who you watch. If you get away from the left-leaning bubble on YouTube, it's rampant. Phillip DeFranco often gets demonetized, often because he gets lurid, but at times it's apparently because he's "too neutral" from a Far Left point of view. Dave Rubin gets demonetized all the time, though he almost never covers anything lurid, and his entire channel basically consists of people talking about things. Computing Forever gets demonetized all of the time, though he's basically just a talking head coming from a conservative point of view. Independent Man: same.

> If you get away from the left-leaning bubble on YouTube, it's rampant.

Can you point me to a few left-leaning spaces on YouTube that do not get demonetized? I follow a few leftist YouTubers, and all have them have several demonetized videos.

I follow Phillip DeFranco. My understanding is all his videos where he gets demonetized are, just like you said, because they were "lurid."

I've never seen evidence that Phillip DeFranco or Dave Rubin got demonetized specifically because of the political leaning of their video.

Alex Jones got demonetized because he claimed shooting victims were crisis actors, which is an acceptable form of "bias" to me. I actually blame his blow-up as the origin of the "Youtube censors conservatives" meme.

I think this polygon article does a generally fair analysis: https://www.polygon.com/2018/3/9/17101166/youtube-purge-robe... though it doens't talk about Rubin or DeFranco.

The most thrown around quote is this:

"As we work to hire rapidly and ramp up our policy enforcement teams throughout 2018, newer members may misapply some of our policies resulting in mistaken removals,"

Which, yea, hire a bunch of moderators out of San Francisco (I assume) and that can happen. But, the company rectified the issue. The fact that videos lost out on money is due to YouTube's dumb method of content moderation (demonetization immediately and invalidating all those views), not because the company itself has a bias. If the company had a bias, it would not train employees to not remove pro-gun videos merely for being pro-gun, or reinstate banned pro-gun videos.

But, you seem to have the greatest handle on this - do you have any articles or analyses across multiple conservative accounts facing demonetization on a regular basis? That kind of evidence would indicate a trend and would finally fulfill my desire for actual evidence of anti-conservative bias by Google.

I think this polygon article does a generally fair analysis

Polygon is thoroughly biased and intellectually dishonest.

"As we work to hire rapidly and ramp up our policy enforcement teams throughout 2018, newer members may misapply some of our policies resulting in mistaken removals,"

Which, yea, hire a bunch of moderators out of San Francisco (I assume) and that can happen. But, the company rectified the issue.

The issue isn't rectified. Basically, those ideologues are just being sneakier.

>Polygon is thoroughly biased and intellectually dishonest.

This seems to be to be ad hominem fallacy. As you haven't successfully targeted individual points of the article, an outside observer would (so far) correctly surmise my argument to be the stronger one. I welcome you to challenge me on this.

>Basically, those ideologues are just being sneakier.

Are they being so sneaky we can't even tell they're doing it? Well then how do you know they're doing it!

This seems to be to be ad hominem fallacy.

I'm going by their track record.

I haven’t seen a lot of evidence for this bias at all. The whole thing feels like just an update “liberal media bias”. Which was always a useful myth.

As GOP Chairman Rich Bond said,"There is some strategy to it [bashing the 'liberal' media...] If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one."

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/16/books/chapters/what-liber...

Companies have a responsibility to ensure the workplace is not a hostile environment that discriminates, no matter the political leaning of the locality.

Enforcement in Silicon Valley tends to let bad actors from the left have lots of leeway while immediately censoring or disciplining for expressing mainstream conservative views.

Right, as someone that grew up liberal in South Carolina, I get it. But when I got bullied for it, I'd go to the principal (a man who once told me Harry Potter was written by Satan himself) and he'd mete punishment regardless, because thems the rules.

What examples are there of a company in silicon valley censoring or disciplining conservative employees for conservative views?

https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-di...

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/03/mozilla-c...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0duqM-6Tbg

Using Mozilla as an example is a bit odd. Sure it certainly was because of his political actions, but Mozilla isn't exactly a normal company. It's very collaborative and community run. He lost the support of the almost the entire community he was supposed to lead. If Mozilla was a normal company with shareholders, it would have been a shareholder revolt. That's just not a tenable situation.

Are you trying to say that anti-equality and anti-women views are now mainstream conservative ones?

I agree with your assessment. Those that disagree probably aren't convinced the Google manifesto was sexist, or that opposing equal rights for gays is not homophobia. I've been in many discussions about both but have never been successfully conviced on either topic - maybe someone downvoting you will explain their reasoning?

Thank you, this is exactly what I wanted to read up on.

Oh, the Google thing. That's easy to sum up in my opinion. From his tldr:

>Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

He failed to demonstrate a difference in traits between men and women correlating to engineering interest and ability. Therefore, equal representation is fair. Therefore, it is an attack on an underrepresented gender to argue otherwise.

If he wants to go and research whether or not there are actual trait differences he's more than welcome to, but he shouldn't be surprised if Google doesn't want to fund that effort.

By the way, it seems you're suggesting "belief that women are biologically predisposed to not be interested in / good at engineering" is a conservative value. I'd agree that it's a value many people that are conservatives hold, but I also know many fiscal conservatives who'd be quite insulted by this conflation.

Brendan Eich opposed a bill giving equal rights to a certain group of humans based on born traits. Is "not wanting to give equal rights to a certain group of humans" a conservative value? That's a shame, because that kind of thing is typically illegal at the Constitutional level. If someone feels bad that they argue that gays shouldn't have equal rights, and then tbeh get fired over it, I have about as much sympathy for that person as I do for a racist.

In any case, racism, sexism, hate against gays are not political opinions, and shouldn't be protected.

For the CNN video, which was most interesting as I haven't seen it before, so thank you for turning it up:

The first guy says "if I suggest we have more border security am I gonna get fired?" I'm not allowed to talk about politics at work, why should he? If there's an environment he's in where people are talking about this stuff, and he doesn't get to, that's definitely an issue! Same for maga hat guy.

If someone holds unpopular opinions and is getting pushback about it, that's life in the big city. Every big city, actually. They're all full of liberals. I've yet to hear of people suffering actual consequences for expressing non-hateful aspects of their personal philosophy.

Tldr I don't care that sexists, racists, or homophobes get fired for their beliefs. I don't care that a maga hat guy can't wear his hat to work because I can't put a Bernie sticker on my laptop and fair's fair. If a trump supporter doesn't have any friends in San Francisco, I am unsympathetic. If they get fired over it, though, I will be mad.

Google is less likely to be allowed to operate in China if they let on that they are operating on American liberal values.

Implying that Google is operating on American liberal values. I guess this depends on the definition of liberal values a lot.

People who live in the Silicon Valley bubble either don't seem to understand just how terrified people are in the heartland, or they don't care, or they don't understand the consequences of not caring. If Silicon Valley firms continue to use their power to bend reality to reflect the world view of the privileged coastal elites, then elections will no longer be viewed as free and fair. If that happens, then civil war is a real possibility.

You mean if the minority in the heartland continue to exert an oversized influence due to representational bias in Congress? Maybe the heartland should realize that their days of being majority are over, both demographically and by proportion and stop using the coastal elites excuse now that it's the coastal majority.

edit: I was just saying that the heartland is dying and doesn't yet realize it and that their death throes are going to screw us all. I don't think civil war is inevitable, I think that the "right wing" or whatever will fizzle over the coming years.

Maybe people should embrace diversity, agree to disagree, and stop forcing their views on others. Democracy was never meant to legitimize oppression of minority views.

The "heartland" is also biased to things like food production and military service to defend the rights of all (including the "coastal majority"). Probably not a good idea to unnecessarily stir the pot and risk secession or civil war.

A little understanding, compassion, and tolerance goes a long way.

You understand that civil war would rebalance the majorities, right? You think a nation with the size and diversity of U.S. would be sustainable without a federated system of power among states?

Anybody contemplating the possibility of civil war in the United States should really take a look at demographics of military service members and locations of military bases.

Don't confuse meeting with Congressmen with the government as a whole or even a form of regulation. Google used to meet with other administrations all the time. The meeting stems a lot more from their dodging the Senate Committee hearings that Twitter and Facebook both showed up to, and their bending to the Chinese government than anything else, rtfa.

To reiterate, there's a reason this article is about Google and not Facebook and Twitter...because those two showed up to the Senate hearing...which was bipartisan.

Google offered their top lawyer for the senate hearing but they rejected him, I guessing it's because they needed CEOs in order to maximize the pleasure from their exercise in public humiliation.

The whole thing about snubbed senators getting mad and wanting revenge is beyond undemocratic it's tyrannical.

It's not undemocratic merely because they are scared that two or three companies arguably control the majority of political discussion in America. It certainly doesn't follow the norms of American laws relating to public spaces and free speech, of which all important laws and decisions were made before the invention of the internet or its widespread adoption.

Edit: If you downvote, tell me why you disagree.

The Senate hearing was about election influence of tech giants, not limited to any company bias (most of the hearing was about Russia/China,) not seeing how that's tyrannical and I'm incredibly libertarian. It was a show, as most public Senate hearings are...but my point is that the entire reason the CEO is meeting lawmakers now is because he snubbed them during the Senate hearing earlier.

The Senate cares way way more about Google killing cooperation with the DoD and then cuddling up to China to censor search than anything else. Google's willingness to violate human rights to gain a foothold in a search market should bother more people than it currently does.

Unless it's illegal it's none of their business.

What do you think is the business of senators?

Senators are legislators. Legislators write laws, changing things from "illegal" to "legal" or vice versa. The question of whether conduct should be illegal is thus absolutely their business, and the purpose of senate hearings (aside from grandstanding) is to give a public forum of record where these issues can be discussed to guide future legislation.

There seems to be a strange misperception that judges should decide whether something should be legal or not, when their role is to /interpret/ the law as it exists, and /apply/ the law to specific situations.

They literally set the policy for the nation, they arent Police. It is percicely their business.

If it was truly about policy they would have accepted the lawyer, it's theatrics and grandstanding and campaigning from that dais.

If a US DoD vendor is getting cozy with a perceived enemy to violate human rights it is 100% the Senate's business.

Define "getting cozy" in this context and please explain why a public hearing is in any way better than a private one or even just exchanging correspondence.

Nothing Facebook or Cambridge Analytica did regarding user data was illegal. Please clarify how the matter of legality determines whether a Congressional hearing is unwarranted, or undemocratic.

I don't think it was warranted in that case either, it was an exicise in public humiliation, a bunch of people who never created anything getting off on talking down to someone much better than them.

> Since when does the government get to police ideological speech

I think they're concerned (as am I) about the false advertising aspect of it - they're not presenting themselves as, say, a newspaper which just runs the stories it runs, but as a _global_ web search company. If they're not actually searching the entire web, or if they're performing tricks to make it difficult to actually use their product the way it's implied that it's supposed to be used, they have to disclose that and make it clear.

> I think they're concerned (as am I) about the false advertising aspect of it ... they have to disclose that and make it clear

You don't believe false advertising is against the law in the United States, do you?

> Google could in principle make its results insanely left-leaning and the first amendment should protect them.

Well, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. While the Government cannot police google's speech, it can certainly break it up with anti-monopoly laws.

> Well, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. While the Government cannot police google's speech, it can certainly break it up with anti-monopoly laws.

Does the first amendment prevent the government from using economic regulations to punish political speech by companies?

There's actually a lot of SCOTUS case law on this question. Including very recent cases, such as http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-rul...

> But the critical question of when and how Phillips’ right to exercise his religion can be limited had to be determined, Kennedy emphasized, in a proceeding that was not tainted by hostility to religion. Here, Kennedy observed, the “neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised” by comments by members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. At one hearing, Kennedy stressed, commissioners repeatedly “endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community.

Similar standards are applied elsewhere; e.g., local govt's limiting assembly (e.g. requiring permits) or speech (eg in council meetings) is, in general, acceptable. But only if those restrictions are applied without ideological/religious bias. Ditto for schools.

If the executive branch systematically communicated that it was breaking up Google because of ideological disagreements between the ruling political party and Google's executive team, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see SCOTUS slap down that enforcement action.

> Does the first amendment prevent the government from using economic regulations to punish political speech by companies?

I doubt it. The politicians criticizing Google's political actions aren't going to be the ones prosecuting it or adjudicating its violations. It'll be referred to regulatory bodies that will determine if it's in violation or not in a much more neutral manner.

The case you cited was about improper bias exhibited by an adjudicator in the course of deciding a case.

Right, that's why I said "the executive branch" rather than e.g. "Trump himself". I.e. if there's a clear chain of evidence from the adjudicator to the politicians, then SCOTUS would really have to pivot hard on many fundamental constitutional questions. Only a GOP-first, conservative-second court would do that. The current conservative wing of the court is very much conservative-first.

I should've been more explicit about my meaning :)

Google is big enough, and have effectively monopoly in a lot of areas. I am sure if the current admin trying to hurt it, they can always find ways to do it.

"Say more conservative things or else we'll take regulatory action against your company" sounds to me like an extremely first amendment-violating abuse of government power.

Say more conservative things or else we'll take regulatory action against your company" sounds to me like an extremely first amendment-violating abuse of government power.

Many YouTubers and many Twitter users would say more conservative things, but Google and Twitter actively discourage and ban users in a way which is pointedly biased. Some of those so targeted deserve such treatment. However, not all of them do. Many of them are simply in ideological disagreement.

It's a dilemma. If monopolies and near-monopolies are allowed to use corporate power to police speech, then this is allowed in the letter of the law, but it stinks to high heaven as far as the spirit of free speech goes. On the other hand, the government shouldn't be in the business of policing speech.

The way out of this dilemma is to break up near-monopoly power where it exists. Right now, there really isn't a good alternative to YouTube, and this near monopoly power lets them effectively police speech across the entirety of a certain kind of widespread culturally relevant media: That of personal video commentary.

There is a big philosophical and legal difference between a population of companies each executing editorial/moderating power over content published on their own platforms and a central government doing the same thing over arbitrary content on arbitrary platforms.

Who is doing the editing is extremely important. If a newspaper declines to publish a white supremacist screed in their op-ed column, that is not censorship. The screeching racist can always try and publish somewhere else, or publish themselves (online or in print), or yell in the streets. But if the government intervenes and tries to force/prevent any of those things from happening, that's censorship and it's unconstitutional. Completely different ballgame. It drives me up the wall that people think those cases are "equivalent".

Not the right word I think. Of course it censorship Its just not government censorship, and thus not a protected mode of free speech. Not equivalent of course, but still censorship all the same.

Free speech is an American value, not just a few words in the Constitution. I'm sympathetic when folks object to private censors. As an American, I'm offended as well.

In your view, is a newspaper obligated to publish a racist screed every time someone sends one in?

A newspaper has editors and a viewpoint. An online platform for folks to post their own articles does not. Its akin to the post office having an editorial board?

Unlike the post office, both a newspaper and Google's primary competitive service is organizing and prioritizing information. Would you suggest that the government mandate how they do that?

The post office is more analogous to the transport layer, in which case you'd be making a solid case for net neutrality, and I'd agree with you there. The post office having an editorial board would be like Comcast having an editorial board.

All of these self-styled platforms have already taken editorial actions under the guise of enforcing their TOS, it’s called moderation. Unless what you’re sending is illegal, the post office doesn’t get to pick and choose what it sends; Twitter, Facebook, Google and the rest do. If you want to send porn through the USPS, you can, but try that with FB.

The “platform” excuse is dead on the first real legal challenge. It’s past time for these publishers to be held to the standards other publishers have been held to for decades or longer. They can’t cry “free speech” on one hand while acting like publishers on the other. When it was just galling hypocrisy fair enough, but they’re big enough and have supplanted enough “traditional media” that their time has come.

If the new media and the tech companies were controlled by right wingers, you would be singing an entirely different tune. Namely the "Free Speech" tune, exactly as performed in Berkeley in the 60's.

The problem isn't with excluding "X" screeds. The problem is with dishonest actors who happen to have corporate power who label everything they disagree with as "X." The problem is with arbitrary corporate media power which can have an effect commensurate with government violation of the 1st amendment, but which skirts the law because it's "private."

In the 1960's the government sought to suppress the speech of students and large segments of the populace, then that populace sought to fight back using Free Speech. Now, in the 21st century, corporate media and tech power seeks to suppress the speech of large segments of the populace online. The question isn't whether or not it's the government. It's the question of whether or not coercive power is going against the will of a segment of the populace. It's the question of force vs. argument.

Fox news is what you describe-- a huge corporate power with control over the views accessible to millions of people. I hate Fox news and wish for them to stop existing, but you won't catch me arguing that the government should shut them down or tell them what to say.

I'm glad you stand on principle. There are many on the left who would gladly shut down Fox news, future consequences be damned.

The issue is not the government shutting down media. It's with big tech shutting down small mom & pop media. If it's wrong for the government to censor, we shouldn't let the authoritarians skirt the constitution by gathering the commensurate power (in the form of a monopoly) to do just as much.

"Or tell them what to say." Is there anyone who actually thinks that what some random YouTuber says is the official word of YouTube? They probably exist and comprise only a sliver of a fraction of a percent of the population. Censorship on a media platform should not be a form of speech. The fact that this is such a sticky issue probably indicates that another category is needed.

> Is there anyone who actually thinks that what some random YouTuber says is the official word of YouTube?

If the government tells YouTube which YouTube videos to suppress, no matter how "unimportant" the "random YouTuber", then the government is restricting both the YouTubers' speech, and YouTube's right to prioritize information as it sees fit. Just the same as if the government told newspapers which articles were allowed to appear on the front page, or which op-eds it could select.

Let's turn your criticism right back around: Would that kind of regulation be tolerable to you if we were talking about conservative publications/websites, and it were a liberal government telling them what to do?

It really blows my mind that people can think Google would spend the time to do this when they automate literally everything else. They don't even have humans looking at app submissions,let alone some liberal censorship team.

How is this not just more conservative persecution syndrome?

It really blows my mind that people can think Google would spend the time to do this when they automate literally everything else.

Fact: Google has hired humans to moderate. They've even spoken to the press about how it went a bit wrong at first.

How is this not just more conservative persecution syndrome?

Note that it's you who has the facts wrong here.

You're gonna have to show some evidence for your accusations, and show how those examples are not against the ToS of those services.

Is simply being a mainstream Republican against the ToS? Since those things are worded so they can mean anything, it's probably technically correct to say so. However, it's petty and dishonest to use that to suppress speech on what's supposedly just a media publishing platform.

You were asked to provide evidence for your assertion, and you have failed to do so. Please do so, otherwise everyone will have to conclude that you are not discussing the topic in good faith.

Using logic based on a ToS isn't good faith.

Again, you've been asked to show the examples that support your point, and you have failed. Either you actually link the examples, or I have to conclude that you don't actually have any, or you know that none of the people you're talking about were banned for "mainstream conservative views".

Put up or shut up. Show what you were referring to, or admit that you don't have anything to complain about.

Again, you've been asked to show the examples that support your point, and you have failed.

There is no failure. I reject your premise that logic on a ToS is empty and idiotic, as most other people would.

Yes, there's a failure. You've not provided any evidence that someone was banned because of "conservative views". Not a single shred. Thus, you're clearly not wanting to discuss in good faith, and you just want to feed your conservative persecution complex. Good day.

It violates the spirit, but not the letter of the law. This is why supporting Free Speech as a value is important.

As another commenter posted, many court decisions have concluded violating the "spirit" as you put it is still unconstitutional.

See above, supreme Court has wrestled with this before, thus it does violate the letter of the law.

IANAL, but the little insight I have had over the years in the US legal system tells me the spirit of the law is rather rarely the heart of the discussion.

Sure, but that's a dishonest straw man argument you've just made.

Why is it only GOP lawmakers meeting with Google, after the GOP president complained about anti-gop bias?

Because if Google is biased against conservatives, Democracts don't stand to benefit from helping point it out. Pointing out that complainers disproportionately come from a certain demographic does not automatically invalidate the complaint. Why is it mostly left wing people complaining about fake news or hate speech on these platforms, why do most complaints about misogyny come from women? Is it because the complaints in question are fabricated, or because one portion of the population is disproportionately affected?

But liberal media complaints are manufactured. We can say this for certain, because multiple GOP operatives have repeated admitted it over the decades.

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/16/books/chapters/what-liber...

Sounds like you answered your own question.

So how is it a strawman that the GOP is using governmental power to pressure Google (which does not censor conservative content) to show more conservative content?

As Google does not censor conservative content, what else would only GOP officials be upset about? If it was general election integrity, the other major issue cross tech/politics right now, why aren't isn't it a bipartisan meeting? Actually, the GOP has downplayed election integrity issues, which further convinces me that it is not a strawman argument to claim the GOP is pressuring tech companies to show more pro-conservative content.

> As Google does not censor conservative content...

There are certainly many anecdotal complaints about Google censoring or demonetizing conservatives on YouTube.

There have been a few notable instances where Google has promoted incendiary content against conservatives in their search results “answers” — although those cases seemed to algorithms picking up tainted UGC. [1]

Also anecdotally, Google News seems to present a highly scewed viewpoint (browsing logged off with no cookies, only inferred location from IP).

I’m not aware of rigorous studies, but by no means would I take it as a foregone conclusion that Google is not censoring conservative content.

[1] - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trudy-wade-google-search-result...

In the case of Trudy Wade, it was because a student blog was biased against her, which doesn't surprise or upset me. Because Google took it down and apologized, I surmise that this is evidence that they are not biased against conservatives.

I appreciate your genuine approach here. The reason I'm being so militant on actual evidence is due to excellent coaching from many people I admire in my life to challenge assumptions and anecdote. Trust me, I'm great fun in design meetings.

In this case, I'd agree with you that Google News presents generally liberal news. Generally I'd say this is because there is 1 conservative media conglomerate (Fox) vs so many liberal ones (CNN, NBC, etc), and meanwhile the many ones I would consider "fair" (Al Jazeera, BBC, NPR, NYTimes, WaPo, NHK) seem so anti-conservative because, well, conservative politicians keep doing some pretty shitty things. That being said, Fox is a default source on my uncookied google news, and I've seen Breitbart and other extraordinarily conservative sources, so I don't think there is a Google-level explicit bias, rather a failure on the part of conservative-leaning media to present a perspective as level-headed as, say, NPR. When the best it has to offer is Fox, Breitbart, and InfoWars, I'm not surprised it gets churned.

Just checking through sources I had to block due to simply terribly ham-fisted propaganda attempts, here's other ones that show up on google news by default:

Investor's Business Daily

New York Post

RealClearPolitics

Screen Rant

The Hill

Washington Times

nationalreview

But that's the exact situation at hand.

Those are two separate and unrelated issues. One issue is the perceived bias against conservatives on their platform, the other issue is whether or not Google is in violation of anti-trust laws. Both issues can be debated, but the way you’ve framed it is extremely unhelpful and uncharitable.

> Well, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences

When the government is the agent of "consequences", that's exactly what freedom of speech is.

>> Well, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences

> When the government is the agent of "consequences", that's exactly what freedom of speech is.

You're talking about the First Amendment, not freedom of speech.

And that's what we are talking about. We're talking about lawmakers and regulations. If you want to attack liberal values from that direction, please do it when it is actually relevant.

> freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences

And that's where you're wrong. The federal government at least in principle guarantees no consequences from itself for merely communicating or publishing ideas.

> And that's where you're wrong. The federal government at least in principle guarantees no consequences from itself for merely communicating or publishing ideas.

They key word there is merely. The government can still punish you for your other actions. For instance, if you use your free speech rights to brag that you're dumping a pollutant into a river, which is unregulated and therefore legal, and the scrutiny you invited with your speech leads the government learn that you're also drug dealer, they can still prosecute you.

>the government learn that you're also drug dealer, they can still prosecute you

Yes, but that's not punishment for communicating or publishing ideas. You can admit things that can be used against you in a prosecution for a different crime, but you cannot be legally punished for merely communicating or publishing ideas. To use such an example as evidence that you are not free from consequence legitimizes the common sentiment that freedom of speech is a soft right that can be violated if we feel like it very strongly.

> Yes, but that's not punishment for communicating or publishing ideas.

Exactly my point. The government has been overlooking Google's antitrust issues, and Google doesn't get immunity from that scrutiny because some GOP congressmen don't like its First Amendment-protected actions. The antitrust scrutiny (and especially its timing) may seem like a "punishment for communicating or publishing ideas," but it's really not.

Eh... there's a specific legal bar that needs to be met in order to invoke anti-monopoly laws. Whether or not that bar is met is an entirely different matter from a companies freedom to speech.

And that bar is: approval by the prosecutorial authority and judiciary. If the right judges are chosen, the executive branch can prosecute and convict a ham sandwich.

Wouldn't it do that for reasons that are independent from the political nature of the results they provide?

Government represents the people, and the people have a right to have their concerns about bias voiced by their elected representatives. Obviously those representatives are still bound by the constitution with regards to legislative actions they can take.

>Their position should be a very firm "don't tell us what to f*cking do."

Then this position should also extend to gender/diversity quotas and similar things pushed by the government.

>the first amendment should protect them

The First Amendment has had many exceptions made for cases the founding fathers could not foresee and even cases they could but didn't consider the long term implications of. This could be just as valid as other exceptions. It'll be up the Supreme Court to decide.

Not disagreeing with your defense of first principles, but how does that square with the concern about (social) tech that was used to influence elections? I just wish there wasn't a monopoly. Then we wouldn't even have to waste our time dealing with this.

I'd imagine ever since campaign finance laws tried to limit corporate involvement in the political process. At what point does bias become a donation?

Is it ideological speech though? The issue is more subtle than that. What Google is doing seems much closer to a public service IMO.

The question in my mind is, based on Google's positioning in the market how much does "common carrier" and "net neutrality" apply? They seem to be in a bit of a grey area.

If they are an opinion site, yeah, 1st Amendment, no doubt. If they want to come out and communicate something completely separate from the search engine like a manifesto, that's also 1st Amendment.

But the messaging and expectation from users is that the search engine is a machine without bias. Presenting something as unbiased when it is biased could be considered fraud.

Also, is Google a curator of information or a generic provider that merely connects multiple parties like the postal system, ISPs, etc? If so, should net neutrality apply?

One approach they could take is that the algorithms just reflect the information that is available and merely mirrors any bias in society. Then again, that raises the question of whether AI is racist, sexist, left/right wing, etc; and whether something should be done about it.

US communications act 230[1].

Tech companies aren't liable for user content on their sites as long as they act as the equivalent of a digital public square. The minute they start selectively editing content they become a "publisher" and can be sued into oblivion for any illegal content they host.

Google search is probably safe but Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter could be argued to be in violation with their policing of conservative content in the past year or so. Social media companies would basically cease to exist without the protections from US communications act 230

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...

Google, Facebook, Twitter etc are profoundly different from any information medium that has existed in the past. As such, we must define new ways of thinking about their behavior, of considering the legality of their censorship.

What's especially insidious about censorship online that forces us to think differently about it is that when users do a Google search, they generally don't expect political bias to influence search results. People are aware of the biases of different media outlets and can tailor their consumption of such media accordingly, but the black box of social media and internet search means the bias is invisible and we can't monitor it the way we can when we read the New York Times or watch Fox News.

Yes these are private companies, but they monopolize what has become the public square and we must not allow the public square to be arbitrarily controlled by private entities.

You could make the same argument about television broadcasts in the 70's, radio in the 30's, and newsprint in the 1900's.

The medium of communication doesn't make speech suddenly exempt from the first amendment - especially when the government is actively questioning if the speech in context is legal because they don't like the search results they see.

Newsprint, Radio and Television are completely different for two reasons. First, they never had the monopoly control over information that Google has.

But a more important distinction is this: Google has control over what content produced by individuals is seen by other individuals. Television, radio and newspapers are much more limited in scope, in that they are private groups which produce content that I consume. Google, Twitter and Facebook instead provide platforms for individuals to share their own content, which is what makes them part of the "public square", and which is why - combined with their monopoly control of the internet - their politically biased attempts at controlling what we see is censorship and cannot be tolerated.

>First, they never had the monopoly control over information that Google has.

Google does not have a monopoly. Market dominance with accessible competition != monopoly. Having a consumer preferred or superior product != monopoly.

>Google has control over what content produced by individuals is seen by other individuals

And the television networks didn't? What you're describing is not different at all.

Yes it has dominance of the market, whether it uses monopolistic practices is irrelevant.

No, television spreads the product of companies, not the thought of individuals.

Except that next time that the left-wing folks are in power, Google is certainly not going to be attempting to ensure fair representation of left-leaning ideas. No, the right wing will insist that Google give fair time to a minority viewpoint and stand up to the government.

This isn't creating a precedent that the government can tell Google what to do. It's creating a precedent that the right wing can tell Google what to do.

Recently Facebook, under the advisement of a conservative organization, censored the distribution of a thinkprogress article that argued Judge Kavanaughs opposition to roe v. wade, citing his legal work and his statements to that effect. This is the type fairness they’re looking to replicate:

https://thinkprogress.org/facebook-weekly-standard-fact-chec...

First, I'm no fan of Trump and I think GOP is full of shit. Also IANAL.

But I don't think First Amendment protects Google, in principle. A corporation is not an individual, it's an artificial construction allowed by the society because its existence is useful to the society. It does not have human rights. And, frankly, I don't think Google's search results even qualify as "speech". (Again, IANAL.) You won't find a single Google employee (or executive) who will say "Yes, what you see on Google's search result represents my opinion."

Besides, it's the fucking job of the government to "complain" about what corporations do. The government complains when a company overworks workers, pollutes a stream, or exercise their right to free speech by saying "This product is safe for baby!" when the government decides it is not.

We can talk about whether this particular case is justified: reducing it into a 1st amendment issue is not very productive, IMHO.

ideological speech? when did Google become a content creator? they are a search engine, among other things, and they skew results against conservatives. the fact Google owns the most used search engine, browser, and mobile OS means they can control the content distributed through those mediums.

your 1A argument is moot. nobody is telling Google what they can say, which again, they don't produce content anyway. they are telling Google to make their platforms level for all points of view. speaking of 1A, InfoWars is all i have to say about that.

last thing, if you don't think conservatives are being censored on FB, Twitter, and Google... well, there's no point arguing. it's happening. DuckDuckGo it.

If conservatives don't like google search results they're free to use bing or any other search engine on the free market. Why would government need to step in when anyone is free to use any search engine they like?

Because the bias isn't as obvious. If one of the media majors is pushing for something political that is known and sorta expected. Anyone who cares knows that your choice of media source is potentially politically motivated.

When I browse through a blog post that speaks positively of a product, I know there is a pretty decent (double-digit percentages) chance that it is a well disguised paid ad. I can at least try to factor that in to my decision making.

Now with Google there is very much an assumption that they have an algorithm that applies some linear or non-linear math and comes up with a rating, sans some by-hand filtering for pornography and some other stuff that should be non-controversial to 80% of the population. If that assumption is wrong, government absolutely has a role to step in and expose that.

> If that assumption is wrong, government absolutely has a role to step in and expose that.

Why? Why can't people who are unsatisfied with the product just use a different product?

I agree with everything you said.

However, they are overtly claiming to be neutral and have no bias.

If in practice they aren't neutral (and I don't event think they themselves can tell at this point, given how complex the search stack must be), they ought to be called on it.

The recent concerns about media biasing politics began in 2016.

> Their position should be a very firm "don't tell us what to f-cking do."

Makes complete sense to me. I assume that is the advice you have for others as well?

Facebook's reaction to government concerns about "fake news":

Don't tell us what to f-cking do!

Facebook's reaction to running ads for Russians:

Don't tell us what to f-cking do!

Super PAC campaign ads:

Don't tell us what to f-cking do!

Donald Trump selecting who he sends Twitter messages to:

Don't tell me what to f-cking do!

Since when does the government get to police ideological speech, or complain about "bias"?

Policing ideological speech: Laws against incitement. Fact: There are also laws about curbing private monopoly control of certain kinds of media in a given area.

Government complaining about bias: Civil rights laws. Equal Opportunity Employment.

When the actions of both powerful government organizations and powerful companies start to infringe on the speech of constituents, then the representatives elected to that government have taken action in the past.

Google could in principle make its results insanely left-leaning and the first amendment should protect them.

This has already happened. I don't think the first amendment would necessarily protect them. There is already a precedent for government to curb monopoly power in media.

They must be very careful not to let the narrative become "we don't bias our results, we swear!"

If "they" is Google, then the bird has already flown the coop in this case.

Their position should be a very firm "don't tell us what to fcking do."*

Should other companies start saying the same? Maybe having far less government would be far better across the board. When one concentrates power, someone figures out a way to abuse it. This applies as much to Google as it does to government.

EDIT: No such thing as "Hate speech laws."

Hate speech is more or less legal in the United States.

Corrected.

> There is already a precedent for government to curb monopoly power in media.

Can you be specific? Because unless there's a tv or radio station involved, there's not a lot to stand on here in the last 50 years.

Because unless there's a tv or radio station involved, there's not a lot to stand on here in the last 50 years.

Translation: We just fell through the cracks because of the technological specificity of older laws. Time for new laws.

> Translation: We just fell through the cracks because of the technological specificity of older laws.

The FCC is able to regulate cross-market ownership of media only when the ownership includes a license to broadcast within publicly owned spectrum. It's not technological specificity, it has to do with the root of each technology's ability to broadcast media.

> Time for new laws.

I was talking about the Supreme Court recognizing wider application of the First Amendment, like in Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson. New laws won't help there.

The FCC is able to regulate cross-market ownership of media only when the ownership includes a license to broadcast within publicly owned spectrum.

The public didn't own that spectrum in 1812. Or at least no one knew. Again, the point is that laws (and regulations) are too technologically specific. It's time to update.

The EM spectrum is a natural and effectively finite resource. Regulation was there to enforce standards and to build a market. The internet from its very inception has always been an interconnection of private property working over private property.

This the same reason why the FCC can regulate content on the airwaves, but can’t over cable. There’s no public property involved.

The EM spectrum is a natural and effectively finite resource. Regulation was there to enforce standards and to build a market.

Hopefully, constellations of satellites providing Internet can take over almost entirely, so public property in the forms of bandwidth and orbits can justify such regulation. I say hopefully, because the current big tech culture has shown that it lacks the ethics to create level playing fields and curb its own biases.

Ideologically biased actors in YouTube are basically engaging in ideological manipulation of the market within its walled garden.

> Again, the point is that laws (and regulations) are too technologically specific. It's time to update.

To what? Without a convincing basis for the government to regulate a type of speech (like a limiting resource that needs to be licensed), your new law isn't going to make it past the first supreme court challenge.

(like a limiting resource that needs to be licensed)

Space on the recommended section and monetization is a limiting resource. Basically, human attention and the sum total of all available information are valuable and limited resources, and manipulation of access to those has potentially dangerous and far reaching consequences.

Hence why the meeting with lawmakers. They can make laws, and it seems they to intend to, perhaps after consulting the parties affected.

> Government complaining about bias: Civil rights laws. Equal Opportunity Employment.

There's a large difference between political/religious bias and racial bias in employment/commerce. The former is explicitly constitutionally protected. The latter is not.

Both are government doing things about bias.

>Policing ideological speech: Hate speech laws.

Hate speech is protected by the 1st amendment.

Corrected. Thanks. I fell into the linguistic trap.

> Since when does the government get to police ideological speech, or complain about "bias"?

It's the standard in most of the world. In parts of europe, you could go to jail for political speech and the media is tightly controlled.

> They must be very careful not to let the narrative become "we don't bias our results, we swear!" (even if it's true)

You know it's true.

"Facebook, YouTube, and the like are publishers.

As a society, we did not have qualms before the internet about publishers declining to amplify the views of people like Alex Jones. Even in the absence of YouTube's support, he arguably has far more of a voice now than he did in the pre-internet days, before he could host his own website. He has that on top of all the traditional means of communication he always had, which includes passing out flyers and yelling in the street.

It is the responsibility of information disseminators to curate their content. Nobody is going to jail over these editorial choices, so the notion that this is a constitutional issue is pure hysteria. YouTube and Facebook are finally stepping up to the responsibility they have long owed us from the beginning."

Why don't you have any principles or consistency? You support corporate censoring when people you dislike gets censored. You support government censorship when people you you gets censored. Is that a bit hypocritical?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com