Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Sun 01/26/2020 View Sat 01/25/2020 View Fri 01/24/2020 View Thu 01/23/2020 View Wed 01/22/2020 View Tue 01/21/2020 View Mon 01/20/2020
2019-08-14 Home Front: Culture Wars
On beyond Veritas: Google Insider Turns Over 950 Pages Of Docs And Laptop To DOJ
Trust busting to follow? One can only hope, since reforming themselves is not a possibility.
[SaraACarter] A former Google insider claiming the company created algorithms to hide its political bias within artificial intelligence platforms ‐ in effect targeting particular words, phrases and contexts to promote, alter, reference or manipulate perceptions of Internet content ‐ delivered roughly 950 pages of documents to the Department of Justice’s Antitrust division Friday.

The former Google insider, who has already spoken in to the nonprofit organization Project Veritas, met with SaraACarter.com on several occasions last week. He was interviewed in silhouette, to conceal his identity, in group’s latest film, which they say exposes bias inside the social media platform.

Several weeks prior, the insider mailed a laptop to the DOJ containing the same information delivered on Friday, they said. The former insider is choosing to remain anonymous until Project Verita’s James O’Keefe reveals his identity tomorrow (Wednesday).

He told this news hound on his recent trip to Washington D.C. that the documents he turned over to the Justice Department will provide proof that Google has been manipulating the algorithms and the evidence of how it was done, the insider said.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai told the House Judiciary Committee in December, 2018, that the search engine was not biased against conservatives. Pichai explained what algorithm’s are said Google’s algorithm was not offensive to conservatives because its artificial intelligence does not operate in that manner. He told politicians, "things like relevance, freshness, popularity, how other people are using it" are what drives the search results. Pichai said even if his programmers were anti-Republican, the process is so intricate that the artificial intelligence could not be manipulated and it was to complicated to train the algorithm to fit their bias.

Google did not immediately respond for comment on the insider’s claims, however, this story will be updated if comment is provided.
Posted by trailing wife 2019-08-14 08:22|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [560 views ]  Top

#1 Google/youtube and facebook must be destroyed. They control too many eyeballs and are the left's propaganda machine along with the msm.
Posted by DarthVader 2019-08-14 08:31||   2019-08-14 08:31|| Front Page Top

#2 Don’t forget that Google Facebook and Twitter gave the Obama campaign tons of user data for free and then refused to SELL the same information to the Trump campaign citing “user privacy”

That by itself should be enough proof of anti conservative bias
Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2019-08-14 08:38||   2019-08-14 08:38|| Front Page Top

#3 The Department of Justice was already actively looking into Google. One can only hope that this just makes that investigation go faster.
Posted by Vernal Hatrick 2019-08-14 09:36||   2019-08-14 09:36|| Front Page Top

#4 One of the difficulties with investigating and attempts at reining these people in may be their relationship with Federal Law Enforcement, and the intelligence community. The Clinton's didn't invent the 'insurance policy.'
Posted by Besoeker 2019-08-14 09:41||   2019-08-14 09:41|| Front Page Top

#5 I don't see what's illegal in political bias. it does seem like the cash value of that bias could amount to a campaign contribution, subject to those laws and regulation.
Posted by Glenmore 2019-08-14 09:54||   2019-08-14 09:54|| Front Page Top

#6 Recently, I saw a news story (maybe here) about a Google guy testifying that Google had the capability through manipulation of its AI algorithms of shifting 15 mil votes. Couple this with social media bias and there is a huge problem for the country.
Posted by JohnQC 2019-08-14 09:55||   2019-08-14 09:55|| Front Page Top

#7 I think it's as Glenmore said. An individual, a company, a newspaper, a magazine, google... it's part of basic rights to be able use your entire commercial enterprise to try and sway public opinion.

As long as dissemination of slanderous or inaccurate information is not sold to the public as 'facts' and 'news'. The media plays this game within the boundaries of legal ethics. For example, many leftist articles we see pose as centrist, left-of-center, but contain verbiage leaning toward insulting and deprecatory of right-wing views and Trump in ways not immediately overt.

The search engines and soc-media enablers of democrat propaganda can filter out right-wing views and facts of the Trump administrations achievements, not removing them, but burying them under page selections of alternatively irreverent or sanctimonious articles and reports that vilify or heckle the Trump administration. A search on google for right-wing contexts will lead you to more results making fun of them. A search on Amazon, for books on Trump or any right-wing concern will give you more leftist shit with five-stars, signaling you are an oddity in an otherwise saner world that hates Trump.

If they want to do that, they can. It won't work though. They are democrat supporters who are campaigning through their enterprises.

But how can you legally shift votes ? Only by convincing people and converting them to your way of thinking.

I reckon that the people have had their fill of digital media, and it's ability to infect minds is overestimated. When they look at republican cities, counties, businesses and compare the Obama regime with Trump's efforts, his people - I'm sure the democrats seem like a joke to the voter.
Posted by Dron66046 2019-08-14 12:33||   2019-08-14 12:33|| Front Page Top

#8 So, in this case a Russian sleeper DID do it.
Posted by Skidmark 2019-08-14 12:48||   2019-08-14 12:48|| Front Page Top

#9 It’s a criminal Anti-trust issue.

Anticompetitive conduct and monopolization — it’s been illegal since the common law days; & powerful federal laws passed in 1800s to rein it in. DOJ has a whole Antitrust Division. Big Tech, rightfully, better worry . . .

LOL, couldn’t happen to a more deserving group.
Posted by cingold 2019-08-14 12:51||   2019-08-14 12:51|| Front Page Top

#10 1. Force G to divest YouTube.

2. Require GAM (Google Ad Manager) to subject itself to periodic audits of its bid management practices.

3. Require Google to subject itself to periodic A/B tests comparing search results for a) Democratic candidates and left-leaning media coverage and b) corresponding GOP candidates and right-leaning media coverage.
3.
Posted by Lex 2019-08-14 12:52||   2019-08-14 12:52|| Front Page Top

#11 Google is not an ordinary media company competing with others in the public square.

Google's 90% dominance of search renders it, de facto, the gatekeeper for digital information, news and assistance.

It is and must be viewed as a public utility akin to the electrical grid or the interstate highway system.

At a minimum it should be intensely regulated and forced to be transparent as to how its algorithms prioritize search results. More likely, search should become a regulated public utility a la electricity or highways.
Posted by Lex 2019-08-14 12:57||   2019-08-14 12:57|| Front Page Top

#12 If search became a regulated public utility, that would certainly be good. Yes, force them into complete transparency. Break the monopoly too.
Posted by Dron66046 2019-08-14 13:14||   2019-08-14 13:14|| Front Page Top

#13 Telecoms’ license to engage in commerce can and should be regulated by government to promote the public welfare. Until the government reigns them in, monolithic Telecom companies will continue censoring those they dislike—until the Common Carrier Doctrine is imposed against them. Antitrust action also would be appropriate.

It cannot be disputed that (as private companies) these monolithic Telecom companies have no obligation to comply with the First Amendment. They are not government entities subject to the First Amendment. They laugh every time we claim a civil rights violation to our free speech— because they think they’re safe as private companies to run roughshod over conservatives as much as they please.

However, the Telecoms forget that they cannot be allowed to violate the Common Carrier Doctrine —“come one, come all . . . each to be given fair access and passage."

They also cannot be permitted to continue their criminal Antitrust activities . . .

The imposition of the Common Carrier Doctrine will likely need to be through Congressional Act (although the Courts could certainly equitably find common carrier status easily enough for almost any of these monolithic Telecom companies under current law). And, given the clear coordination between the Telecoms, the DOJs Antitrust Division should take action, as well.

Until the Common Carrier Doctrine is imposed, or an Antitrust action reins them in, these unregulated monolithic Telecom companies will continue their discriminatory abuses of conservatives—hiding behind the false claim of a private right to content-based discrimination.
Posted by cingold 2019-08-14 13:33||   2019-08-14 13:33|| Front Page Top

#14 Now, that's a sound argument the judicial committee probably won't make.

Cingold, I thought the common carrier doctrine applied to transit administration only ?
Posted by Dron66046 2019-08-14 13:39||   2019-08-14 13:39|| Front Page Top

#15 It doesn't seem right that companies such as Google should:

1. Promote left-wing candidates and left wing materials and left-biased websites, while at the same time,
2. De-emphasize conservative candidates, and shadow ban and censor conservative web sites, and demonetize authors they don't agree with.

It is not a level playing field. It is very much like a tech way of election-rigging.
Posted by JohnQC 2019-08-14 16:31||   2019-08-14 16:31|| Front Page Top

#16 Google is a publisher hiding under the veneer of a service provider.
Posted by Lex 2019-08-14 16:38||   2019-08-14 16:38|| Front Page Top

#17 As early as 1934 telecommunications services were considered to be subject to common-carrier regulation. The history since then is complicated, but telecommunications services are still easily considered to be common carriers. See, e.g., Direct Communs. Cedar Valley, LLC v. Federal Communications Commission, 753 F.3d 1015 (10th Cir. 2014).

A common carrier is “A commercial enterprise that holds itself out to the public as offering to transport freight or passengers for a fee. • A common carrier is generally required by law to transport freight or passengers or freight, without refusal, if the approved fare or charge is paid.” Common Carrier, Black’s Law Dictionary 242 (9th ed. 2009).
Posted by cingold 2019-08-14 22:13||   2019-08-14 22:13|| Front Page Top

16:04 Besoeker
16:01 Frank G
15:41 trailing wife
15:36 Lex
15:32 trailing wife
15:23 Lex
15:08 Rob Crawford
15:06 Rob Crawford
15:02 SteveS
14:56 Mercutio
14:55 Mike Kozlowski
14:55 Secret Master
14:54 Mercutio
14:53 Mercutio
14:50 Mercutio
14:47 Thaith Elmeresing6163
14:45 trailing wife
14:39 Thaith Elmeresing6163
14:38 g(r)omgoru
14:32 charger
14:20 swksvolFF
14:15 swksvolFF
14:10 Skidmark
14:10 Besoeker

Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
18.232.51.247

Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com