Google CEO Sundar Pichai Is Headed To Washington This Week To Discuss Censorship, China (theverge.com) 100
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Google CEO Sundar Pichai will be present at a private meeting with top Republican lawmakers this Friday to discuss the company's controversial plans to relaunch a search product in China and perceived liberal bias of search results, according to a report from The Wall Street Journal. According to the WSJ, Attorney General Jeff Sessions plans to meet with state attorneys general on Tuesday to discuss Google's alleged censorship of conservatives. Tech firms have denied the existence of liberal bias in products, and Google has pushed back against key Trump inaccuracies, but it sounds as if Pichai will be forced to answer questions nonetheless. The meeting is being organized by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). Late last week, Pichai sent an email to employees, which was obtained by The New York Times, in which he stated outright that Google has never influenced search results for political purposes and has no plans to do so in the future.
Pichai also plans to attend a public hearing later this year held by the House Judiciary Committee following the November midterm elections, after Google co-founder and Alphabet CEO Larry Page notably declined to show up to a Senate Intel Committee hearing on election interference earlier this month. In addition to mending relationships over Page's absence, Pichai will also be addressing Google's plans to relaunch a search product for the Chinese market, a move that has resulted in widespread criticism given the likelihood such a product would be heavily censored and would aid in China's use of information control to maintain social and political order.
Pichai also plans to attend a public hearing later this year held by the House Judiciary Committee following the November midterm elections, after Google co-founder and Alphabet CEO Larry Page notably declined to show up to a Senate Intel Committee hearing on election interference earlier this month. In addition to mending relationships over Page's absence, Pichai will also be addressing Google's plans to relaunch a search product for the Chinese market, a move that has resulted in widespread criticism given the likelihood such a product would be heavily censored and would aid in China's use of information control to maintain social and political order.
Re: Alleged censorship of conservatives (Score:4, Informative)
Except of course for the hundreds of demonstrable examples, sure.
Their CEO literally said at an all-hands meeting that they would, "do everything in their power to stop conservatives."
You are purposefully ignorant because it suits your politics, but one day the worm will turn and you'll find yourself oppressed by the same monopolistic evil.
They are useful idiots... (Score:1)
...they support censorship now as it helps their perceived tribe. Later it will be used against them. It has always happened that way and will always happen - they are 'useful idiots' for some to support the removal of free speech.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Their CEO literally said at an all-hands meeting that they would, "do everything in their power to stop conservatives."
Source? I haven't been able to find any quotes anything like this.
As far as I can tell, the supposed tech megacorp censorship against conservatives is some mix of categorizing far-right hate speech and outright harassment as "conservative" speech, and inflamed conservative persecution complexes leaping at shadows.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can tell, the supposed tech megacorp censorship against conservatives is some mix of categorizing far-right hate speech and outright harassment as "conservative" speech,
again who does the "categorizing" here?
who decided which is "conservative speech"? are there universally valid definitions of words like "far-right", "hate speech" etc? did a court convict everyone censored for "outright harassment"?
instead, wasn't it "tech megacorps" with leaders steeped in liberal ideology that categorize, convict, and censor, speech?
personally as private corps it is their right to censor whatever speech they want, and being liberals, they do censor conservatives.
but all this pretending
Re: Alleged censorship of conservatives (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's reasonable and honest to call their web services unbiased. They only censor "conservatives" for sufficiently broad, goose-steppey definitions of "conservative." They'll never censor you for calling for limited government, supply-side economics, strict abortion laws or loose gun laws.
Hate speech has a reasonably specific definition. [wikipedia.org] If you post holocaust denial, calls for genocide, calls for violence against people by sexual orientation, etc, then you'll get banned. If you use the platforms for harassment you'll also get banned, and courts need not be involved.
You'll never find a case of "conservative speech" being censored by Facebook/Twitter/Google unless the person making the claim defines "conservative" as including viewpoints that conservatives actively avoided public association with just 3-4 years ago. So are open white nationalists of various kinds to be explicitly and publicly welcomed under the "conservative" tent? Choose.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. And given that the only speech which is "censored" is bigoted tirades and laughably-faked news, saying "conservatives are censored" is the same as saying "all conservatives are bigots and gullible idiots", which is clearly false but should probably annoy conservatives.
Re: (Score:2)
running from questions as usual. typical.
again who does the "categorizing" of speech here? be specific, don't run!
why do you think, you, and those who do the categorizing, are more qualified to categorize which speech is "conservative" or not, than those who say what has been censored is conservative speech?
those who say that include not just racists, but republicans( in office, including the president and those in congress, and party outside), trump voters of many kinds, traditionalists, isolationists and
Re: (Score:2)
*conclusions
Re: (Score:2)
I don't run from these questions, I simply prefer to ignore them because they're silly post-truth questions.
In short, words have meanings and we share an objective reality. We can track their meanings through history and scrutinize attempted interpretations with logic in a politically impartial way. That way when someone tries to spin their meanings around on a dime to suit their own political purposes like the people complaining about "conservative" speech being censored are doing today, we can call them o
Re: (Score:2)
you are running from questions, like a dog from a stick.
here are the main questions you run from in short form, details are in my earlier comments.
1/ who does the "categorizing" of speech here? be specific,
2/ why do you think "conservatives", including ones in office, in known "conservative" parties, and in organizations serving "conservative" causes for along time, cannot define what "conservative speech" is, but censorious "liberal" leaders of tech megacops can?
3/ did a court convict everyone censored, of
Re: (Score:2)
That's called Google bombing, but feel free to let Reddit drive you deeper into the looney bin:
http://fortune.com/2018/07/19/... [fortune.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It is. They haven't fixed this new form of Google bombing in general. If it appears to have a far-left bias, it's because the planet is far-left compared to the US.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm modded down, no source given, currently the GP appears to have a fabricated quote at +5.
Re: (Score:2)
You are purposefully ignorant because it suits your politics, but one day the worm will turn and you'll find yourself oppressed by the same monopolistic evil.
He doesn't believe Google will ever censor him because he only thinks the correct progressive thoughts, and Google loves progressive thought.
But here's another scenario for him to think about: demographic change engineered by liberals will lead to death of conservatism and the Republican party. They actually brag about this, and they're working hard to bring this about, and real life data shows they're succeeding. Trump is just a tiny speed bump, history is on their side. So the Republican party will very l
Re: (Score:2)
Google should and almost certainly will continue to do what they've always done: censor hate speech and harassment without political bias. If any new party deals in those, let them be butthurt.
Re: (Score:2)
Addendum: If any new political party shelters people who deal in those and feels wronged by proxy, let them be butthurt too.
Re: (Score:2)
Google should and almost certainly will continue to do what they've always done: censor hate speech
Okay but what about books? Shouldn't books containing hateful material be burned?
Re: (Score:2)
Top post is a lie.
Google is Playing Leftists (Score:2, Insightful)
Google is pretty much spitting in the face of the Left,
On the one hand they champion Leftists Causes.
On the other, they are enabling a government that would see most Leftists sent to work camps and the causes they champion extinguished.
Are you a support of the LBGTBQWERTY agenda? In China, those people are sent to work camps.
A big Environmental supporter? Don't try protesting Chinese pollution or it's the work camps for you.
Free Speech? Forget about it. Google will see to it that the Government knows what
Leftist Bias (Score:5, Insightful)
Tech firms have denied the existence of liberal bias in products
A liberal bias might be a good thing; at least it would err on the side of free speech. It's the far leftist bias that's a problem. If you don't know the difference . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Do you work for the Google censorship team?
Re: (Score:1)
Tech firms have denied the existence of liberal bias in products
A liberal bias might be a good thing; at least it would err on the side of free speech. It's the far leftist bias that's a problem. If you don't know the difference . . .
All you have to do is look at the present situation where the far right is in power. With getting invited to Washington to be bullied by the far right, the situation would be the same if the far left was running the show. Just different things the different set of kooks want suppressed.
Because make no mistake, this is not about bias, this is a demand for suppression.
Re: (Score:3)
Correct. Leftist is not liberal. I am extremely liberal. Today that is called conservative. The leftists have often hijacked and contaminated the name for what they are: STATISTS.
Re: (Score:1)
Correct. Leftist is not liberal. I am extremely liberal. Today that is called conservative. The leftists have often hijacked and contaminated the name for what they are: STATISTS.
Remember when Barry Goldwater was considered too conservative? I wish his ghost would come back and smite both of the far ends of the political spectrum.
I'd run for office, but I kissed a grrl when we were both in third grade, and waiting for #metoo to come and crucify me.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I don't see ANY "liberals" standing up against what they are doing. They are complicit, and I suspect they agree with it.
After talking to many "liberals" on tax policy, once I have them convinced that reducing tax rates INCREASES revenue (its a fact), they then come back that the point of taxes is to punish the successful not raise revenue.
When pointed out school vouchers might help smart kids in bad neighborhoods, they tell me that school vouchers will wreck their "good schools" by letting kids from "bad
Re: (Score:2)
Words are hard. And confusing classical liberalism with current liberals probably works on gullible folks who want to believe the worst of their "enemies", but is pretty laughable to most people.
Also, wow, I'm a leftist, but I agree with almost nothing that that video claims leftists believe and support. It's kinda like if someone made a video claiming practicing Christians were cannibals. You can see how they get from point A to point Crazy, but it's not a path anyone reasonable would use.
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind the fact that most people in the country are demonstrably not conservatives
They're demonstrably not liberal either - remember that the difference in the number of voters between Trump and HRC is such a small percentage it's almost a rounding error (roughly 1/4 of the country voted for HRC, and roughly 1/4 of the country voted for Trump).
Minority yes. Oppressed no. (Score:2)
They're demonstrably not liberal either
Didn't claim they were. I just said the majority aren't conservative which is absolutely true. The remainder are crudely speaking a mix of liberals and moderates. The electorate seems to be approximately about 1/3 of each with moderates being the swing voters tipping the balance in any given election. That's overly simplifying things greatly of course but it's a reasonable mental picture. The exact proportions might be 40/40/20 or some other breakdown but the point is that conservatives are a minority
What's your source on that? (Score:4, Informative)
Never mind the fact that most people in the country are demonstrably not conservatives
Where are you getting this from? Hopefully not political polling, after seeing how accurate it was in 2016. Speaking of the election itself:
Trump + Johnson = 67,474,169 votes
Clinton + Stein = 67,310,732 votes
It's a wash.
and should reasonably be expected to see things a different way.
"Seeing things a different way" != Censoring all other ways
Re:Bias? No. Politics? Yes. (Score:5, Informative)
> search results accurately provide results that reflect this fact.
Newsflash: That's all Republicans want too.
Its no secret that Google as a company is VERY left-leaning. Its also no secret that Google got rich from prioritizing search results in a way that benefits Google. You do the math.
Re: (Score:2)
"VERY left-leaning."
Strange that it doesn't infect their algorithms. I mean I'm a liberal, and my household appliances, computers, cars, etc. all now have a liberal bias, just like me.
Re: (Score:2)
> Strange that it doesn't infect their algorithms.
Says who?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's amazing how everything that doesn't agree with conservative political opinions somehow equals liberal bias. ....
Strawman much?
And it's not a liberal bias, ti's a leftist, objectively pro-totalitarian bias.
Because Google would just love to implement totalitarian thought suppression for the USA and President Hillary! just like they're getting paid to do by the Chinese Communists.
After all, it's the LEFT that created the term "no-platforming" [wikipedia.org]
Because when all you have is poverty-producing stale economic us-against-them bullshit stuck in the 19th century, you have to shut the other guys up.
Re:Bias? No. Politics? Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's amazing how everything that doesn't agree with conservative political opinions somehow equals liberal bias.
It cuts both ways.
Progressives: This woman is a survivor of sexual assault! She must be allowed to speak! All women must be believed!
Republicans: OK. Let her come testify. How is next week? Her place or ours?
Progressives: How dare you demand that she speak!
Republicans: ??
Progressives: See?!?!? They don't believe her?
Republicans: What about the supposed witnesses that can't back up the claims (even though the accuser said they would back up the claim) and what about the dozens of women who support the accused?
Progressives: Ignore them! All women must be believed! What we meant to say was that all women must believed so long as what they say brings harm to men; women who say things that don't harm men or who even suggest that men should be allowed to defend themselves when accused are not to be believed because they are really just tools of the patriarchy! (but we didn't say that the first time because it doesn't have the same ring to it and protesters would have a hard time fitting all onto a sign.)
Republicans and even some Democrats: ??
Never mind the fact that most people in the country are demonstrably not conservatives and should reasonably be expected to see things a different way.
The country is about evenly split. It stands to reason then that progressives should see stuff they "disagree" with about half the time and conservatives should see stuff they "disagree" with half the time. That is demonstrably not the case. There is way more pro gun control and pro abortion content on Youtube, just for instance. In fact, if you try to put pro gun or pro life content up on YouTube, it is likely to be removed as hate speech. That is the sort of thing that causes rational people to conclude that there is a clear bias.
Not to mention that being conservative (or liberal) has no inherent relationship to objective reality or factual accuracy.
That is so true that it is scary.
$diety forbid that search results accurately provide results that reflect this fact.
They don't. Hence why some people are frustrated.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Should Juanita Broaddrick be believed?
According to the Clintons, no. According to the DNC, no.
Should Mary Jo Kopechne be believed?
According to the DNC, no.
So what is it? Are women to be believed or not. They appear to be in a quagmire of saying all abuse of women should be believed but having besmirched a number of women who were abused by their friends.
Re: (Score:2)
It's amazing how everything that doesn't agree with conservative political opinions somehow equals liberal bias. Never mind the fact that most people in the country are demonstrably not conservatives and should reasonably be expected to see things a different way. Not to mention that being conservative (or liberal) has no inherent relationship to objective reality or factual accuracy. $diety forbid that search results accurately provide results that reflect this fact.
I see some snowflake conservatives are busy downmodding anything that seems negative about conservatives.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you've already noticed that saying anything on Slashdot that doesn't back the conservative agenda is going to get you modded down in a big, big hurry.
I've been forced to conclude that there's a lot of conservatives here with multiple accounts. And a disproportionate share of the AC comments seem to come from hyper-conservative assholes.
I expect I'll join you at minus 1 shortly for simply speaking the truth about what's happening to Slashdot.
Reap What You Sow (Score:1)
I can't wait until Google moves wholesale to China, closes it's stupid little san fran company town, and all the coddled weirdos that work there end up homeless.
What Talks and What Walks (Score:3)
What 'Muricans, left, right, or center, readily and casually qualify as repression is a difference of cultural and political actuality. The Chinese people are not innocents awaiting the savior of American sensibilities any more than Americans require a Communist party to remedy its razor-thin margins of two-party partisan politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Won't work, he's a leftist, they'll not only pillory him, but also say that he's an example of leftist hypocrisy on sexual predators if a Democrat doesn't initiate a flying jumpkick to stop the harassment within 3 seconds.
Re: (Score:2)
See? Perfect example. If one Democratic politician isn't dropped like a hot potato on the first allegation of abuse, they're exactly as bad as the Republicans who unflinchingly support their rogues' gallery of wife-beaters and rapists.
With binary thinking and false equivalence, all morally imperfect beings and organizations can be equally terrible, so that the most terrible need not feel ashamed.
Semantic Web (Score:1)
Google uses what it knows about you to feed you the results that it thinks are most likely to interest you. It is called the Semantic Web. This creates an echo chamber where liberal people see more liberal content and conservative people see more conservative content. Everyone is becoming brainwashed into thinking that their view of the world prevails.
Facebook and other companies do the same thing to maximize clicks and revenue. A side effect is to cause a fissure which polarizes society. To combat thi
Even though Google got rid of "Don't be evil"... (Score:1, Troll)
Not that Google is a corporate saint, but the Republicans have a different problem. Since the rise of Fox News and the far right, fact-averse version of the GOP now being inflicted on America, objective truth has a liberal bias.
what he's actually doing (Score:2)
There, FTFY