White House Drafts Order To Look Into Google, Facebook Practices

[Kal'Stang]

Quote shortened due to 5K character limit.

I ....

I'm no lawyer, and I don't pretend to be a lawyer. I do however have eyes and ears. I also know that the internet industry is not near as regulated as other types of businesses. That many of the laws that we currently have on the books were written before the internet became as widespread as it is. That an internet business could violate the spirit of a law while not technically violating the letter of the law. I know that an internet business is much harder to regulate than a physical business. And that its much harder to prove something is happening on the internet than a physical business model. All because while the models might be similar, their structures are actually very different.

And more importantly I know people. If you really think that people won't use their platforms to right a perceived wrong if given even half a chance then you're not paying attention to people. And the bigger the platform the more they can affect that perceived wrong. And to do so it is not unthinkable to think they may be doing it with subterfuge so as to not receive any negative feedback...or at least very little negative feedback as the "cleaner" they appear the more they can affect things.

You're right that I can't argue this from a legal standpoint. Like I said, I'm no lawyer. And though I know quite a bit about law, I am sorely lacking in knowledge of business law. I've never been good at such. However you're wrong that I will use an emotionalized argument. I can easily argue this from a logical standpoint. You don't need a law degree to do so. Besides, in order to get a law you must first be able to recognize that a law is needed. Which means talking about something that is, or may be, happening that could, or can, be considered as "unjust". In this case "unjust" meaning that a law should be in place or should cover something, but isn't.

Can we agree on these points? If not what? If so shall we continue?

 

[Kobie]

https://www.bloombergquint.com/busi...ould-crack-down-on-google-facebook#gs.D7devcg



Well it's about time we had "The talk".

We just can't have the nations information pipelines filtering content to suit their politics. The arrogance of the Google CEO not to appear in front of congress didn't win him any friends. And working with China to suppress their people who don't think as China thinks they should think is totally against American principles but apparently not against Google's. We cannot ignore the fact that in reality they may be beta testing this "social ranking" system in China for use in other countries where opinions are a problem.

Facebook is now asking for phone numbers and photos too.

This issue should be bi partisan since Google's discussions have been recorded where they admit juicing search results to disadvantage the Republican party in recent elections, and conservatives in general. Even democrats should recoil at this idea.

The bolded is 100% fictional.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Most people around here know how I am about our Rights. I'm a strong advocate for them. Because of that I've been labeled various "ism's". But even I think that these tech giants need some regulation to make sure that people aren't being censored. The internet is, relatively speaking, barely regulated compared to other businesses. Most people get their information now a days from the internet, but if that information is being manipulated to push an agenda then that is a huge problem. And as far as I know there is nothing stopping this from happening. I understand that these companies have Rights, but others have Rights also. Rights that aren't listed in the Constitution. Such as a right to knowledge. Not just knowledge that a select group allows, but full knowledge.

I can't remember what the laws were called but there used to be laws for news programs that made it to where they had to allow time to hear from the other side of the political spectrum. It was repealed or whatever. I think it needs to be put back into effect and applied to internet businesses also.

You are referring to the Fairness Doctrine, which the right in the USA was only to happy to have abolished. I think that law would be a bit unwieldy in this digital age, but I might like to see a workable version introduced. That FD was okay when there were basically 3 networks, and 2 or 3 sides to listen to.

 

[Kal'Stang]

First of all, we have Trump inc. promising to "look into" FB...et al actions. How did we get to ...breaking the law?

Look into the possibility that they are breaking anti-trust laws. Thought that was obvious? Pretty sure that the OP talked about that? *Checks OP* Yep, right there in the first line. "“thoroughly investigate whether any online platform has acted in violation of the antitrust laws.”" First sentence even.

 

[TobyOne]

Not a lot of teeth to this. Anti-trust laws are complex. I think this is more of a shot across the bow of companies like google, FB and twitter who exert monopolistic influence to effect speech. Difficult to hit moving targets.

 

[Kal'Stang]

You are referring to the Fairness Doctrine, which the right in the USA was only to happy to have abolished. I think that law would be a bit unwieldy in this digital age, but I might like to see a workable version introduced. That FD was okay when there were basically 3 networks, and 2 or 3 sides to listen to.

Ah yes, that was it. And yes, as it was it would definitely be unwieldy in this age. But I think we definitely need something like it applied to both the media and the internet imo. Both are major sources of information and we need to make sure that ALL information is shared...not just one sided information. I've always believed in the old axiom of "knowledge = power". And the more knowledge people have the better off our society is imo. It very well could have stopped/changed the results of the 2016 campaign which had two very unelectable people where one of them got elected.

 

[Xelor]

Hey, man. As long as the government keeps it's dirty hands of my Medicare, I'm fine

Okay.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Different algorithms produce somewhat different results. Example, my default is Duck Duck Go, but I'll use one of the others if I don't find what I'm looking for with that.

What Trump seems to want is for these private companies to turn over their proprietary algorithms - things that they have massive investments in developing - so that the administration can examine and possibly force changes to how they work. That is wrong on a lot of levels. I would actually expect conservatives to get this idea even before liberals would, but it seems that Trumpism has turned conservatism inside out. Either that, or conservatism was always a sham.

I fully understand how that is wrong on many levels. But wouldn't it also be wrong for a company to use that to their advantage and also do similar or even completely different wrongs? There needs to be a compromise on this one. It's not an easy one to figure out that is for sure.

 

[calamity]

https://www.bloombergquint.com/busi...ould-crack-down-on-google-facebook#gs.D7devcg



Well it's about time we had "The talk".

We just can't have the nations information pipelines filtering content to suit their politics. The arrogance of the Google CEO not to appear in front of congress didn't win him any friends. And working with China to suppress their people who don't think as China thinks they should think is totally against American principles but apparently not against Google's. We cannot ignore the fact that in reality they may be beta testing this "social ranking" system in China for use in other countries where opinions are a problem.

Facebook is now asking for phone numbers and photos too.

This issue should be bi partisan since Google's discussions have been recorded where they admit juicing search results to disadvantage the Republican party in recent elections, and conservatives in general. Even democrats should recoil at this idea.

lol...so much for that First Amendment. By the time the GOP gets done, they will only stand for the Second and the stupid National Anthem.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Ordering search results and censoring are different animals.

I have a friend who told me years ago that google blocked his access to a particular right wing, anti-Muslim site, but I was able to find it.

It still comes up just fine, at least for me:
https://www.google.com/search?sourc.....gws-wiz.....6..35i39j0i131j0i10.zcurUQu3yQY

In a way yes, they are different animals. But at the same time they're the same. I'll liken it more along the lines of a single animal, but the difference is the difference between the head and the butt. Same animal, but the results of the head is far different than that of the butt. Yet both are connect as the head takes in the food that comes out the butt. Know what I mean?

Censoring is completely removing something from being able to be seen. Ordering search results can accomplish that. For example: If I search for the term "light bulb" the first googled link comes up with "Light Bulb Superstore" 1000bulbs.com...out of 426,000,000 results. Who in their right mind is going to go through those 426,000,000 results? No one. At most the average person will look at that first link, maybe 10 other links and then leave it at that. Now imagine it being a political topic. The average person is still going to just look through at most 10 links. If the ordering makes it to where a conservative view point is on the last page out of those 426,000,000 search results...who is going to see it? Google doesn't even have a "last page" link to get to the last page. And after the first 10 pages it only advances by 4 pages per click. In that way a search order can effectively cause a type of censorship.

Like you said in your previous post, "Different algorithms produce somewhat different results" And an algorithm can be made to put certain things "at the back of the line" so to speak. They can still technically say "hey, we aren't censoring them, they're right there!" But the end result is the same really.

 

[Helix]

White House Drafts Order To Look Into Google, Facebook Practices

what could possibly go wrong? hooray for freedumb!

 

[Wan]

FWIW, I never got into FB and I use other search engines besides Google whenever possible because I don't like being tracked.

What are these alternative search engines that you also use? Are they good?

 

[MrShangles]

What Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al adopt as corporate policies is their business. The government needs to stay the hell out of their business. Individuals need to either use the services/platforms and "get over it," or use competing services/platforms.

Let us guess, your a liberal right? Listen closely, if they do it to conservatives now, at some time it will happen to all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Xelor]

What Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al adopt as corporate policies is their business. The government needs to stay the hell out of their business. Individuals need to either use the services/platforms and "get over it," or use competing services/platforms.

Let us guess, your a liberal right? Listen closely, if they do it to conservatives now, at some time it will happen to all.

Blue:
Slippery slope

 

[<alt>doxygen]

What are these alternative search engines that you also use? Are they good?

My default is Duck Duck Go. It seems to work as well as any. After that I'll try Bing and / or Google, even yahoo. There are others that a quick search with your current engine will bring up.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Ah yes, that was it. And yes, as it was it would definitely be unwieldy in this age. But I think we definitely need something like it applied to both the media and the internet imo. Both are major sources of information and we need to make sure that ALL information is shared...not just one sided information. I've always believed in the old axiom of "knowledge = power". And the more knowledge people have the better off our society is imo. It very well could have stopped/changed the results of the 2016 campaign which had two very unelectable people where one of them got elected.

I tend to agree.

Regarding the Knowledge = Power idea : I always believed that. I've spent my career in tech, with the 80's and 90's in facets of the telecom industry. We thought we were helping that process, and that the world would be a far better place for it. The idea of getting high speed internet into countries with repressive regimes seemed like one way to unlock them. But look at the landscape now. It's info overload, with many people choosing to comfort themselves by swimming in ideas they agree with and arguments about why anything else represents something hideous.

Basically, it's on each of us. The info IS out there, at least for most (NK, forget it). The thing is that we each have to be willing to check differing points of view, because there are groups actively spamming the pool with disinformation. Spin (always been there) and outright lies and propaganda. We need to be smart enough to wade though it.

I know that was slightly OT, and I'll attempt to bring that back into context a little in my responses to your other posts.

...back in a bit.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

I fully understand how that is wrong on many levels. But wouldn't it also be wrong for a company to use that to their advantage and also do similar or even completely different wrongs? There needs to be a compromise on this one. It's not an easy one to figure out that is for sure.

I personally consider the idea of using some criteria that is hidden by the company to skew results in a particular way ethically wrong. That isn't the way I would run a company. I do tend to think that given the fact that we aren't talking about monopolies here, and the fact that these companies are in a capitalistically driven battle for users, that they would want to skew results to please those users (this comes with its own issues, obviously). Driving users to the sites of corps that pay them is another gotcha that is a given with the capitalist nature involved. We all, as consumers, need to be aware of this.

As I mentioned, I use Duck Duck Go as a default search engine because they at least claim not to track me. I'm also one who will log into places like Amazon with different browsers from different machines, though I always make purchases from the same one - one that I let "know" me via cookies.

As for Google and the others, I don't really think they would risk alienating 30-50% of the population by censoring sites that advocate one political view. They bow to shareholders first and foremost - at least that is my assumption. Could be wrong, of course, but I would need to see some compelling proof that I haven't seen yet.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

In a way yes, they are different animals. But at the same time they're the same. I'll liken it more along the lines of a single animal, but the difference is the difference between the head and the butt. Same animal, but the results of the head is far different than that of the butt. Yet both are connect as the head takes in the food that comes out the butt. Know what I mean?

Censoring is completely removing something from being able to be seen. Ordering search results can accomplish that. For example: If I search for the term "light bulb" the first googled link comes up with "Light Bulb Superstore" 1000bulbs.com...out of 426,000,000 results. Who in their right mind is going to go through those 426,000,000 results? No one. At most the average person will look at that first link, maybe 10 other links and then leave it at that. Now imagine it being a political topic. The average person is still going to just look through at most 10 links. If the ordering makes it to where a conservative view point is on the last page out of those 426,000,000 search results...who is going to see it? Google doesn't even have a "last page" link to get to the last page. And after the first 10 pages it only advances by 4 pages per click. In that way a search order can effectively cause a type of censorship.

Like you said in your previous post, "Different algorithms produce somewhat different results" And an algorithm can be made to put certain things "at the back of the line" so to speak. They can still technically say "hey, we aren't censoring them, they're right there!" But the end result is the same really.

I do know what you mean, and as I stated, I think it would be ethically wrong and stupid from a business standpoint for a company like Google to do what Trump has accused them of. That's a lot of people who can get ticked and go to other engines, email services or whatever. Google IS embedded in some things, so I recognize it takes a little effort to move but it's not hard if you want to do it.

If I'm running a company and a customer has a history of going to and spending time on conservative sites, I would provide that. Of course, in doing so I'm possibly contributing to a problem of confirmation bias, aren't I? Again, that's on the user. This is the gotcha that none of the people I worked with in the 90's thought about much. We figured that if the info was out there, even if some individuals wanted to avoid it the fact that others would have that info would help diffuse the issue. I think I was naive...