Anyone who thinks Google does not filter content based on political views, has simply not been paying attention. Just last week for instance YouTube pulled a documentary from the Canadian filmmaker Lauren Southern after less than 24 hours because Google did not like her film on the European migrant crisis, perhaps because it exposes some of the human trafficking involved. And Ms. Southern is no newbie, she has 700,000 subscribers on YouTube, but this latest project of hers has disappeared without a trace and no reason given.
So yes, Google does indeed censor if your politics don’t happen to match theirs.
Actually, you've provided zero proof of that. Why on earth would Google care about whether a film exposes human trafficking? Do you have any statements from Google (or, for that matter, the filmmaker) about why the film was pulled?
I'd be willing to bet big money that it has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with a copyright complaint (such as the music used) and/or another, more innocuous reason. To quote Sflocal, until you provide sourced proof you're just generating "crap like this that's the cancer of the Internet. People (not companies) putting out their opinions and masquerading it as fact."
What certifiable nonsense. There is no election interference from Google
I call it electoral interference when Google intentionally and explicitly makes an effort to ban all copies of an audio doctored clip of Pelosi. If I posted an audio doctored clip of Trump would Google block that? Oh wait, Google allows decapitations of Trump, so I guess any audio doctoring of Trump would be allowed by Google. I think we should test Google's consistency and bias by posting funny edits of major politicians from every party. Would a 1% speed change of Pelosi be banned? Would audio edits of Trump be banned? There are hundreds of possibilities.
But in any case this is a complete change of topic from my post. I don't think there was a single person on either side of this new issue that attempted to address my original question. Everyone changed the topic. Perhaps my question was too difficult for all AppleInsider readers?
Google and others have been pushing the far right conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones and other crackpot Trump supporters off their platforms. Trump needs them for his 2020 election plans.
So, he is sending his Gestapo out to send them a message: "Don't mess with my supporters"
It's what happens when the Justice Department swears allegiance to a crooked president rather than the country and the Constitution.
I'm interested in knowing whether Google and similar companies (Twitter, Facebook, etc) are subject to election spending laws when they make an effort to filter in or out certain political views.
Name one bonafide instance where FB, Twitter, or even Google ever purposely returned results with the intent of manipulating political views?
It's crap like this that's the cancer of the Internet. People (not companies) putting out their opinions and masquerading it as fact.
Anyone who thinks Google does not filter content based on political views, has simply not been paying attention. Just last week for instance YouTube pulled a documentary from the Canadian filmmaker Lauren Southern after less than 24 hours because Google did not like her film on the European migrant crisis, perhaps because it exposes some of the human trafficking involved. And Ms. Southern is no newbie, she has 700,000 subscribers on YouTube, but this latest project of hers has disappeared without a trace and no reason given.
So yes, Google does indeed censor if your politics don’t happen to match theirs.
I suggest looking at the Wikipedia page for Ms. Southern. She has been denied entry into the UK & New Zealand due to her activity. For instance she tried to stop a private search & rescue ship from Italy. About this she stated; "if the politicians won't stop the boats, we'll stop the boats." Such positions of advocating law breaking led to Ms. Southern being detained by the Italian Coast Guard & being banned from the UK.
What certifiable nonsense. There is no election interference from Google or Twitter. There is from Russians. It’s fact, as reported again just the other day by republican Mueller. It’s not up for debate. You’re entitled to your own nonsense opinions, but not your own facts.
It is such a sad state for Eisenhower-era republicans that Trump-era republicans are happy to be in bed with Russians if it means getting their joke of candidate in office.
Sure there is.
If some Russian spending a few thousand dollars for a laughable FB ad counts as interference, then massive online providers like Google, FB and Twitter actively censoring political opinions that they don't like is far worse interference.
The biggest threat to the USA comes from within the USA, by people who refuse to accept the results of legitimate elections.
Perpetrating and engaging in a hoax against the legitimately elected President of the US also counts as interference of the worst kind. It's pure sedition.
I'm interested in knowing whether Google and similar companies (Twitter, Facebook, etc) are subject to election spending laws when they make an effort to filter in or out certain political views.
Name one bonafide instance where FB, Twitter, or even Google ever purposely returned results with the intent of manipulating political views?
It's crap like this that's the cancer of the Internet. People (not companies) putting out their opinions and masquerading it as fact.
Anyone who thinks Google does not filter content based on political views, has simply not been paying attention. Just last week for instance YouTube pulled a documentary from the Canadian filmmaker Lauren Southern after less than 24 hours because Google did not like her film on the European migrant crisis, perhaps because it exposes some of the human trafficking involved. And Ms. Southern is no newbie, she has 700,000 subscribers on YouTube, but this latest project of hers has disappeared without a trace and no reason given.
So yes, Google does indeed censor if your politics don’t happen to match theirs.
I suggest looking at the Wikipedia page for Ms. Southern. She has been denied entry into the UK & New Zealand due to her activity. For instance she tried to stop a private search & rescue ship from Italy. About this she stated; "if the politicians won't stop the boats, we'll stop the boats." Such positions of advocating law breaking led to Ms. Southern being detained by the Italian Coast Guard & being banned from the UK.
Online sites (including Appleinsider) can use their judgment to filter out content which promotes illegal activity.
Thank you for the suggestion, and I admit I don’t know much about Ms. Southern’s background and whether her views have evolved over time or not. However all of this misses the point, because if YouTube did have a valid reason for removing her documentary, then they owe an explanation as to why they did so. Maybe they had a valid reason, maybe they didn’t.
But to remain silent as to why they yanked the film, is a bad look, and reeks of censorship.
Since the video is actually up in a different YouTube location than the original it seems it was not banned after all. Is it possible that for publicity reasons she removed he own video and re-posted it after a day? It certainly helped create noise about it, gain attention. I've not seen either of the two parties, Ms Southern nor Google, claim the video was banned.
What certifiable nonsense. There is no election interference from Google or Twitter. There is from Russians. It’s fact, as reported again just the other day by republican Mueller. It’s not up for debate. You’re entitled to your own nonsense opinions, but not your own facts.
It is such a sad state for Eisenhower-era republicans that Trump-era republicans are happy to be in bed with Russians if it means getting their joke of candidate in office.
Sure there is.
If some Russian spending a few thousand dollars for a laughable FB ad counts as interference, then massive online providers like Google, FB and Twitter actively censoring political opinions that they don't like is far worse interference.
The biggest threat to the USA comes from within the USA, by people who refuse to accept the results of legitimate elections.
Perpetrating and engaging in a hoax against the legitimately elected President of the US also counts as interference of the worst kind. It's pure sedition.
Yes, the biggest threat is from within -- but it is from those who are using the now politicized U.S. justice department to "investigate" the investigators of what you call "a laughable FB ad" but what all of the U.S. intelligence services call a "concerted attack by a foreign adversary". Or, in this case, where that politicized justice department is now "investigating" the perceived political enemies of the recipient of that attack. Hitler started the same way...
I'm interested in knowing whether Google and similar companies (Twitter, Facebook, etc) are subject to election spending laws when they make an effort to filter in or out certain political views. If traditional media have to be subjected to spending laws, then should Google also be subject? I sincerely don't know, and I would appreciate clarity from DOJ. If Google filters out any particular political view, are they subject to treat such actions as political support expenses? If not, why should anyone else be subject to these laws? But if so, how is Google monitored for its bias? Do their filtering algorithms need to be examined by the government?
Google would be subject to such laws just as other entities (which aren't political committees) would be. But generally speaking there aren't prohibitions or limitations on other entities spending money (to facilitate speech) to influence elections. Such prohibitions would violate the Constitution.
There are special rules for various kinds of political committees. There are also prohibitions and limitations on contributions which can be made to political committees (to include candidate committees). For example, Google (i.e. Alphabet) can't - because it's a corporation - contribute anything to federal political candidates. But it's free to spend whatever it wants on its own speech, even if that speech is political in nature.
There are reporting requirements when more than certain amounts are spent on electioneering communications or as independent expenditures, as those terms are defined by law. But I don't think what you are referring to would qualify as either of them.
An electioneering communication is a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which refers to a particular candidate and which is publicly distributed within 60 days of a general election (or 30 days of a primary election) to a relevant electorate. An independent expenditure is an expenditure for a communication which expressly advocates for the election or defeat of a particular candidate. Filtering search results, even if done for political purposes, generally wouldn't qualify as either of those things.
My original post did not make this a free speech issue. I merely asked how existing US election laws would be applied in this case. I didn't ask for any change to the laws. The 1971 US Federal Election Campaign Act, which has been updated several times, seems to indicate that if you spend money to influence an election you must disclose your spending. Couldn't search result algorithms, created by paid employees, constitute spending on, and influencing, an election? Should Google be subject to this valid federal law? I'm simply asking for clarification on these questions. Is Google exempt from existing federal law regarding election spending? If Google were to return biased results, could that constitute election spending? My opinion is that the US Congress should pass a law indicating what should be done, and if they won't, the US courts should interpret existing laws to answer this question.
Reporting requirements for people or entities which aren't political committees are only triggered by certain kinds of spending, not by all spending which is meant to influence elections. There are two kinds of spending which trigger reporting requirements: Spending on electioneering communications and independent expenditures. In my previous post I briefly described what those things are.
Stop this anti-corporation propaganda and punishing successful corporation to bring them down. Our politician and government agencies have nothing better to do so they go after low hanging fruit. You always ask, does China do such thing to there companies ? Off course not. So, how American companies with there hands tie behind there back will able to compete against Chinese companies where government provides so much to help them grow with subsidy,hacking,stealing,restricting foreign companies to not let them compete with domestic companies,.
Sometime it seems Americans are idiot shooting to there own foot and claim victory..
Stop this anti-corporation propaganda and punishing successful corporation to bring them down. Our politician and government agencies have nothing better to do so they go after low hanging fruit. You always ask, does China do such thing to there companies ? Off course not. So, how American companies with there hands tie behind there back will able to compete against Chinese companies where government provides so much to help them grow with subsidy,hacking,stealing,restricting foreign companies to not let them compete with domestic companies,.
Sometime it seems Americans are idiot shooting to there own foot and claim victory..
Actually, China is more likely to go after organizations who either publish material unfavorable to the administration or who refuse to publish material favorable to the administration (even if it is discredited propaganda from known propagandists).
Comments
I'd be willing to bet big money that it has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with a copyright complaint (such as the music used) and/or another, more innocuous reason. To quote Sflocal, until you provide sourced proof you're just generating "crap like this that's the cancer of the Internet. People (not companies) putting out their opinions and masquerading it as fact."
But in any case this is a complete change of topic from my post. I don't think there was a single person on either side of this new issue that attempted to address my original question. Everyone changed the topic. Perhaps my question was too difficult for all AppleInsider readers?
So, he is sending his Gestapo out to send them a message: "Don't mess with my supporters"
For instance she tried to stop a private search & rescue ship from Italy. About this she stated; "if the politicians won't stop the boats, we'll stop the boats."
Such positions of advocating law breaking led to Ms. Southern being detained by the Italian Coast Guard & being banned from the UK.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Southern
Online sites (including Appleinsider) can use their judgment to filter out content which promotes illegal activity.
If some Russian spending a few thousand dollars for a laughable FB ad counts as interference, then massive online providers like Google, FB and Twitter actively censoring political opinions that they don't like is far worse interference.
The biggest threat to the USA comes from within the USA, by people who refuse to accept the results of legitimate elections.
Perpetrating and engaging in a hoax against the legitimately elected President of the US also counts as interference of the worst kind. It's pure sedition.
There are special rules for various kinds of political committees. There are also prohibitions and limitations on contributions which can be made to political committees (to include candidate committees). For example, Google (i.e. Alphabet) can't - because it's a corporation - contribute anything to federal political candidates. But it's free to spend whatever it wants on its own speech, even if that speech is political in nature.
There are reporting requirements when more than certain amounts are spent on electioneering communications or as independent expenditures, as those terms are defined by law. But I don't think what you are referring to would qualify as either of them.
An electioneering communication is a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which refers to a particular candidate and which is publicly distributed within 60 days of a general election (or 30 days of a primary election) to a relevant electorate. An independent expenditure is an expenditure for a communication which expressly advocates for the election or defeat of a particular candidate. Filtering search results, even if done for political purposes, generally wouldn't qualify as either of those things.
We seem to be following in their footsteps.