Leaked Google Briefing

[Wickian]

Quote

‘THE GOOD CENSOR’: Leaked Google Briefing Admits Abandonment of Free Speech for ‘Safety And Civility’

An internal company briefing produced by Google and leaked exclusively to Breitbart News argues that due to a variety of factors, including the election of President Trump, the “American tradition” of free speech on the internet is no longer viable.

Despite leaked video footage showing top executives declaring their intention to ensure that the rise of Trump and the populist movement is just a “blip” in history, Google has repeatedly denied that the political bias of its employees filter into its products.

But the 85-page briefing, titled “The Good Censor,” admits that Google and other tech platforms now “control the majority of online conversations” and have undertaken a “shift towards censorship” in response to unwelcome political events around the world.

Examples cited in the document include the 2016 election and the rise of Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) in Germany.

Responding to the leak, an official Google source said the document should be considered internal research, and not an official company position.

link

Basically they want to shift from American free speech of "everything that isn't illegal goes" to European free speech of "everything that the people in charge don't find arbitrarily offensive goes".  Considering they consider Trump in general to be offensive, this isn't a good thing.

These companies claimed they are only platforms for other's speech which qualifies them for certain legal protections, but actions like these should remove them from said protections since they might be taking an active role in manipulating the messages they let people see.

[bee]

 

If ever more proof was needed that 'Google' is the enemy of freedom and a traitor to Western values this is it...

They are authoritarian, dictatorial and downright dangerous... 

from the link... (bolded bit)

The document also bemoans that the internet allows “have a go commenters” (in other words, ordinary people) to compete on a level playing field with “authoritative sources” like the New York Times. Google-owned YouTube now promotes so-called “authoritative sources” in its algorithm. The company did not specifically name which sources it would promote.

heaven forbid that the 'Common People' should escape being dominated by ''''authoritative sources'''' and should have a platform to communicate with one another without the control freaks and corporations taking over -

does anything ever change...?.... now modern High Tech Authoritarians behave like medievil monarchs but pretend to themselves and others to be morally superior.... and enjoy the power they wield over others ... 

   

Edited October 10, 2018 by bee
late edit to add a bit

[aztek]

we knew it long ago based on their actions. 

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, bee said:

 

If ever more proof was needed that 'Google' is the enemy of freedom and a traitor to Western values this is it...

They are authoritarian, dictatorial and downright dangerous... 

from the link... (bolded bit)

The document also bemoans that the internet allows “have a go commenters” (in other words, ordinary people) to compete on a level playing field with “authoritative sources” like the New York Times. Google-owned YouTube now promotes so-called “authoritative sources” in its algorithm. The company did not specifically name which sources it would promote.

heaven forbid that the 'Common People' should escape being dominated by ''''authoritative sources'''' and should have a platform to communicate with one another without the control freaks and corporations taking over -

does anything ever change...?.... now modern High Tech Authoritarians behave like medievil monarchs but pretend to themselves and others to be morally superior.... and enjoy the power they wield over others ... 

   

These corporations cannot simply claim they are private businesses and as such are not subject to public oversight.  The world is changing rapidly and these platforms are a large part of what is driving that change.  To suppress the voice of a significant percentage of the population is wrong and will lead to blowback eventually.  This aspect of the Left/Right conflict is what mystifies me.  The Progs seem to have been taken over by the farthest fringes of their movement and have convinced themselves that those who believe differently can simply be shouted down and forced into compliance by the government and the legal system.  A legal system which they ignore as often as not.  It is literally childish and would be funny if it weren't sliding towards being dangerous.  If the R's keep control of the House and Senate, I expect protests all over the nation by this extreme minority with globalist funding.

[Setton]

1 hour ago, and then said:

These corporations cannot simply claim they are private businesses and as such are not subject to public oversight.  The world is changing rapidly and these platforms are a large part of what is driving that change.  To suppress the voice of a significant percentage of the population is wrong and will lead to blowback eventually.  

Either start a rival platform, take your custom elsewhere or buy shares and get your say. 

Otherwise it's a private company, they can do what they like. 

It's amazing how quickly hardline capitalists abandon their support for 'free market forces' when it doesn't go their way. 

[Farmer77]

7 hours ago, Wickian said:

link

Basically they want to shift from American free speech of "everything that isn't illegal goes" to European free speech of "everything that the people in charge don't find arbitrarily offensive goes".  Considering they consider Trump in general to be offensive, this isn't a good thing.

These companies claimed they are only platforms for other's speech which qualifies them for certain legal protections, but actions like these should remove them from said protections since they might be taking an active role in manipulating the messages they let people see.

IDK on this one. On the one hand this has major implications if it were put into action, on the other though don't you think it would be irresponsible if they weren't having these conversations?

Quote

Responding to the leak, an official Google source said the document should be considered internal research, and not an official company position.

Its a little tough to demand these guys get everything right and then kill them when we find out that they're discussing how to do so.

 

[Farmer77]

45 minutes ago, Setton said:

It's amazing how quickly hardline capitalists abandon their support for 'free market forces' when it doesn't go their way. 

Yep everyone loves capitalism until they realize their ideas arent winning in the marketplace.

[Wickian]

36 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

IDK on this one. On the one hand this has major implications if it were put into action, on the other though don't you think it would be irresponsible if they weren't having these conversations?

Its a little tough to demand these guys get everything right and then kill them when we find out that they're discussing how to do so.

 

I'm not saying they don't have the right to make whatever changes they want with their policies, but I do think they should face the consequences of those choices.  Whether that be a reduced reputation socially(which doesn't mean much since people will still use their services) or a loss of certain legal protections(mostly liability protection) for a service standard they are no longer keeping to.

[Farmer77]

3 minutes ago, Wickian said:

I'm not saying they don't have the right to make whatever changes they want with their policies, but I do think they should face the consequences of those choices.  Whether that be a reduced reputation socially(which doesn't mean much since people will still use their services) or a loss of certain legal protections(mostly liability protection) for a service standard they are no longer keeping to.

Thats definitely fair enough.

Do you believe that they have in fact put that memo into action?

Edited October 10, 2018 by Farmer77

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, Setton said:

Either start a rival platform, take your custom elsewhere or buy shares and get your say. 

Otherwise it's a private company, they can do what they like. 

It's amazing how quickly hardline capitalists abandon their support for 'free market forces' when it doesn't go their way. 

When a corporation becomes so powerful that starting another platform to challenge it is nearly impossible AND when that corporation decides to censor political opinion then its influence in modern America SHOULD be evaluated.  There is a coming conflict between the MSM and these hard-left leaning social media sites that crush dissent and the rest of America.  You guys are clueless about the blowback that will come if fairness seems completely out of reach for millions of us.  What is Auntie Maxine loves to chant?  NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!

[Wickian]

10 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Thats definitely fair enough.

Do you believe that they have in fact put that memo into action?

It depends on if anything can be tangibly proven.  In this case, unless they hand over their algorithms for analysis which is unlikely, things can only be circumstantially proven with before-and-after statistics of the years surrounding 2017.  If such records even exist.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Wickian

[Setton]

1 hour ago, and then said:

When a corporation becomes so powerful that starting another platform to challenge it is nearly impossible AND when that corporation decides to censor political opinion then its influence in modern America SHOULD be evaluated.  There is a coming conflict between the MSM and these hard-left leaning social media sites that crush dissent and the rest of America.  You guys are clueless about the blowback that will come if fairness seems completely out of reach for millions of us.  What is Auntie Maxine loves to chant?  NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!

Got it. So market forces go against you, threaten violence. The American way... 

[Dark_Grey]

3 hours ago, Setton said:

Either start a rival platform, take your custom elsewhere or buy shares and get your say. 

Otherwise it's a private company, they can do what they like. 

Indeed. What happens when that same private company's services are used all over the world? Does that change anything? You can't pretend Google's insane censorship polices are happening in an American vacuum. What search engine do you use? Do you have a Gmail account? They are watching you too. Maybe during the next election cycle in England, Google suppresses news about one candidate while pushing search results for the other candidate to the top? We all knew this was coming when Google agreed to abide by Chinese censorship laws to get their platform in that country - Google is a-moral now. This has nothing to do with left or right, this is about the future of free information on the internet and the fight to keep it decentralized. Google may very well have CIA ties as Facebook and Snapchat most certainly do. They are building profiles on every one, complete with facial recognition, biometrics (fingerprints, retina scans,) and browsing habits. Private information they conned us in to handing over from our living room couches.

[spartan max2]

6 hours ago, bee said:

 

If ever more proof was needed that 'Google' is the enemy of freedom and a traitor to Western values this is it...

They are authoritarian, dictatorial and downright dangerous... 

from the link... (bolded bit)

The document also bemoans that the internet allows “have a go commenters” (in other words, ordinary people) to compete on a level playing field with “authoritative sources” like the New York Times. Google-owned YouTube now promotes so-called “authoritative sources” in its algorithm. The company did not specifically name which sources it would promote.

heaven forbid that the 'Common People' should escape being dominated by ''''authoritative sources'''' and should have a platform to communicate with one another without the control freaks and corporations taking over -

does anything ever change...?.... now modern High Tech Authoritarians behave like medievil monarchs but pretend to themselves and others to be morally superior.... and enjoy the power they wield over others ... 

   

Yeah, I always saw the internet as akin to the invention of the printing press and when people started to learn to read.

People could mass produce and share thoughts, it was no longer up to the clergy to "interpret" the bible 

Good things always happen when common people are empowered to think and share knowledge.

Any organization that is against common people having a voice is on the wrong side of history.

 

Edited October 10, 2018 by spartan max2

[spartan max2]

3 hours ago, Setton said:

Either start a rival platform, take your custom elsewhere or buy shares and get your say. 

Otherwise it's a private company, they can do what they like. 

It's amazing how quickly hardline capitalists abandon their support for 'free market forces' when it doesn't go their way. 

In the real world everyone isn't a hard lined political party person lol.

I support resonable regulations. The American people have shown in the past that we do not like monopolies.

Google is a tech giant that can have a monopoly on information. It's worth taking a serious look at these things, wouldn't you agree?

I don't see why everything has to be so partisan all the time. 

Right now google dosent like trump so censorship might seem tolerable to you, but views and people change, if they start censoring peoples voices who knows what monster of a situation can arise from it later on. 

[Farmer77]

26 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Right now google dosent like trump so censorship might seem tolerable to you, but views and people change, if they start censoring peoples voices who knows what monster of a situation can arise from it later on. 

Where my concern comes in is that it really appears the goal of Trump and his followers is kind of a reverse censorship.

They seem to be demanding that people speak nicely about them and their beliefs or that voices that dont like them be muted in favor of those that do regardless of the realities involved surrounding character, policy and popularity. 

30 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Google is a tech giant that can have a monopoly on information. It's worth taking a serious look at these things, wouldn't you agree?

It is most definitely worth taking a look at these things but when the government is going after private companies from a position of victimhood and perpetual conspiracy mongering I think we need to be especially vigilant against abuses. 

[ian hacktorp]

4 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

Google may very well have CIA ties as Facebook and Snapchat most certainly do

This is a bigger issue than most folks realize.  Google may well have had CIA funding at its inception, meaning US taxpayers were unwitting investors in Google's search technology.

Leaving aside the clear issues of fraud, it may soon be argued that Google's network belongs to the people of the US, not private shareholders.

Obviously, the question of whether Google can censor anyone as a private corporation then becomes moot.

Edited October 10, 2018 by hacktorp

[+Hammerclaw]

It's not just Google that's frustrated with the content of free speech they find politically offensive. MSN took the draconian step of eliminating comments entirely. Having the public take them to task for their biases and factual inaccuracies was too much for their Left-leaning staff.  The aim is to deny a faction of the public the means to connect and communicate and propagate their political and social views through their medium.

[Farmer77]

9 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

It's not just Google that's frustrated with the content of free speech they find politically offensive. MSN took the draconian step of eliminating comments entirely. Having the public take them to task for their biases and factual inaccuracies was too much for their Left-leaning staff.  The aim is to deny a faction of the public the means to connect and communicate and propagate their political and social views through their medium.

People were acting like animals and they didnt have the energy or want to expend the resources to moderate. ESPN Cleveland , that hotbed of political activism (sarcasm)  , has done the same along with many other sites. Its about humans not politics.

Quote

“We do not intend for this to be the end of user contributions, but a first step in creating a better way for our audience to engage in discussion around issues they care about. We are working on developing an entirely new discussion platform that will enable open debate, and at the same time go much further in protecting the user community from abusive and offensive posts. In the short term the commenting feature won’t be available. However, it’s a necessary step in order to allow us to create a solution that welcomes open and intelligent debate in a respectful environment.”

 

Being a conservative doesnt require being an abhorrent monster.  Its the behavior that is getting things shut down not the politics.

[Imaginarynumber1]

23 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

It's not just Google that's frustrated with the content of free speech they find politically offensive. MSN took the draconian step of eliminating comments entirely. Having the public take them to task for their biases and factual inaccuracies was too much for their Left-leaning staff.  The aim is to deny a faction of the public the means to connect and communicate and propagate their political and social views through their medium.

Most places got rid of comments because of racists, death threats, and common gutter trash, despite you wanting to make it into some sort of conspiracy, 

[Setton]

1 hour ago, hacktorp said:

This is a bigger issue than most folks realize.  Google may well have had CIA funding at its inception, meaning US taxpayers were unwitting investors in Google's search technology.

Leaving aside the clear issues of fraud, it may soon be argued that Google's network belongs to the people of the US, not private shareholders.

Obviously, the question of whether Google can censor anyone as a private corporation then becomes moot.

Google may also turn out to be secretly run by Trump to let him play the victim card because his followers will lap it up. 

See, I can come up with totally unfounded theories too. 

[ian hacktorp]

23 minutes ago, Setton said:

See, I can come up with totally unfounded theories too.

Haha...yes, you and Farmer do make quite the team in that department.

If, however, you're looking for theories founded in actual fact, well, you'll have to venture outside of your protective bubble...

Google’s true origin partly lies in CIA and NSA research grants for mass surveillance

https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-cia-and-nsa-research-grants-for-mass-surveillance/

How The CIA Made Google

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-28/how-cia-made-google

Edited October 10, 2018 by hacktorp

[ian hacktorp]

nm

Edited October 10, 2018 by hacktorp

[+Hammerclaw]

33 minutes ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Most places got rid of comments because of racists, death threats, and common gutter trash, despite you wanting to make it into some sort of conspiracy, 

Nothing conspiratorial about it. It was a clear political decision and it cost them a significant portion of their readership. People changed to venues where they still have a voice and their contributions are welcome. MSN, like much of the MSM is a fifth column and mouthpiece for the left with little or no effort toward journalistic impartiality. Now, I know that's just fine with you and Farmer--they're your kind of guys.

[Farmer77]

12 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

Haha...yes, you and Farmer do make quite the team in that department.

If, however, you're looking for theories founded in actual fact, well, you'll have to venture outside of your protective bubble...

Google’s true origin partly lies in CIA and NSA research grants for mass surveillance

https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-cia-and-nsa-research-grants-for-mass-surveillance/

How The CIA Made Google

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-28/how-cia-made-google

What you just posted was evidence that research grants were used to develop google .

Grants are gifts, not stock options, meaning that no Google is not a public entity even though their founders used federal grants during their research.