Google employees protest work on censored search engine for China

[matrix07012]

Google employees protest work on censored search engine for China

 

Quote

According to leaked documents obtained by The Intercept, Google is building a censored search engine for China that would blacklist websites and search terms about human rights, democracy, religion, and peaceful protest.
The New York Times reported on Thursday that the project – known internally as Dragonfly – has been developed largely in secret, much to the chagrin of employees who don’t take kindly to the idea of helping Beijing’s already widespread censorship apparatus.

 

 

 

 

Quote

Hundreds of Google employees have signed a letter demanding more transparency to understand the ethical consequences of their work, the Times reports. The letter says that they’re troubled by Google’s willingness to work with China to implement its censorship rules, noting that such willingness raises “urgent moral and ethical issues.”
From the letter, which is circulating on internal communications and had been signed by some 1,400 employees as of Thursday:
Currently we do not have the information required to make ethically-informed decisions about our work, our projects, and our employment.
We urgently need more transparency, a seat at the table, and a commitment to clear and open processes: Google employees need to know what we’re building.

 

So they'll protest censorship in China but not censorship on YouTube. 

 

 

Sauce: https://archive.fo/hmUa5 / http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2018/08/20/google-employees-protest-work-on-censored-search-engine-for-china

[rcmaehl]

1 minute ago, matrix07012 said:

1000 years gulag. No trial

[matrix07012]

1 minute ago, huilun02 said:

Youtube is a subsidiary. Different employees

Yeah, I just wrote that to tick off the opinion box.

[Sauron]

10 minutes ago, matrix07012 said:

So they'll protest censorship in China but not censorship on YouTube. 

There is no censorship on youtube, google doesn't remove videos because the government told them to. This on the other hand would mean removing results as mandated by the government, which is censorship of google itself.

 

For our Chinese friends, I'll just leave this here: duckduckgo.com

[HarryNyquist]

7 minutes ago, Sauron said:

For our Chinese friends, I'll just leave this here: duckduckgo.com

<<YOUR SOCIAL SCORE HAS DECREASED. PLEASE REPORT TO THE NEAREST SCORECENTER FOR REEDUCATION>>

[mrchow19910319]

believe it or not, this is still good for chinese people.....

cos on baidu you cant search JACK SHIT! 

[EarthWormJM2]

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

There is no censorship on youtube

... I would have to beg to differ on this. Now I wouldn't say YouTube out right 'removes' videos (minus the extreme ones/copyright infringement), but they do skew all of it's 'recommended video' algorithms to promote videos that they want you to see. Especially with political videos. For example: They promote more democratic left leaning videos and don't really promote many republican right leaning videos. Yes, they all exist on YouTube and no, YouTube is not taking them down, but what they are doing is if you subscribe to certain channels that don't line up with YouTube\Googles view points, they don't notify you when that channel uploads videos. Only if you turn on notifications for that channel. Also, they demonetize most of the videos that don't line up with their view points, effectively killing most channels from getting their videos out, or even being able to fund making more videos. And these are just opposing view point videos, nothing radical, or violent, or hateful, just differing opinions that they would rather not have out there. 

 

Like YouTube would rather promote "try not to laugh" or "X reacts to X" videos, then videos from channels I am actually subscribed to unless YouTube 'likes' those channels. If I watch a bunch of those videos YouTube doesn't agree with, it will start to show up in recommended videos, but only for a day or 2, and as soon as I start watching something else, they will no longer be recommended, but videos from that random more popular channel that I watched only 1 video of 3 months ago keep getting recommended. So they aren't straight up censoring videos, but not recommending them, not notifying subscribers that there are new videos, and demonetizing all those videos to drive those channels away, is basically censorship... very fishy at best... 

[Sauron]

3 minutes ago, EarthWormJM2 said:

... I would have to beg to differ on this. Now I wouldn't say YouTube out right 'removes' videos (minus the extreme ones/copyright infringement), but they do skew all of it's 'recommended video' algorithms to promote videos that they want you to see. Especially with political videos. For example: They promote more democratic left leaning videos and don't really promote many republican right leaning videos. Yes, they all exist on YouTube and no, YouTube is not taking them down, but what they are doing is if you subscribe to certain channels that don't line up with YouTube\Googles view points, they don't notify you when that channel uploads videos. Only if you turn on notifications for that channel. Also, they demonetize most of the videos that don't line up with their view points, effectively killing most channels from getting their videos out, or even being able to fund making more videos. And these are just opposing view point videos, nothing radical, or violent, or hateful, just differing opinions that they would rather not have out there. 

 

Like YouTube would rather promote "try not to laugh" or "X reacts to X" videos, then videos from channels I am actually subscribed to unless YouTube 'likes' those channels. If I watch a bunch of those videos YouTube doesn't agree with, it will start to show up in recommended videos, but only for a day or 2, and as soon as I start watching something else, they will no longer be recommended, but videos from that random more popular channel that I watched only 1 video of 3 months ago keep getting recommended. So they aren't straight up censoring videos, but not recommending them, not notifying subscribers that there are new videos, and demonetizing all those videos to drive those channels away, is basically censorship... very fishy at best... 

This is a complete misunderstanding of what censorship is. The rule of thumb is: if it's not enforced by the government, it's not censorship. If I owned a theatre and you wanted to perform a piece I don't like, not allowing you to do it on MY stage would not be censorship.

[Taf the Ghost]

3 hours ago, Sauron said:

There is no censorship on youtube, google doesn't remove videos because the government told them to. This on the other hand would mean removing results as mandated by the government, which is censorship of google itself.

 

For our Chinese friends, I'll just leave this here: duckduckgo.com

There's this guy the US Government threw in prison over a video they claimed started a riot in Libya...

[Taf the Ghost]

16 minutes ago, Sauron said:

This is a complete misunderstanding of what censorship is. The rule of thumb is: if it's not enforced by the government, it's not censorship. If I owned a theatre and you wanted to perform a piece I don't like, not allowing you to do it on MY stage would not be censorship.

All of the major Tech Companies get massive contracts from the Government, so the whole "there's a big wall between the Tech Companies and the Government" has always been false. There's also the little issue of how most of them got a start with funding from the CIA's Venture Capital fund.

 

But the real one that blows a hole in the argument is the DoJ case against Microsoft in the 90s. Everyone got the message: you better pay the danegeld or the Government will destroy your business. It makes all of the Big Tech into quasi-government agencies, a bit like a military contractor. 

 

Welcome to the way the world actually works. Big Government & Big Business are just different job descriptions & skill sets, there's no bright line between them.

[Sauron]

5 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

There's this guy the US Government threw in prison over a video they claimed started a riot in Libya...

That's different and not google's fault...

Just now, Taf the Ghost said:

All of the major Tech Companies get massive contracts from the Government, so the whole "there's a big wall between the Tech Companies and the Government" has always been false. There's also the little issue of how most of them got a start with funding from the CIA's Venture Capital fund.

No, google executives can't go to jail over it.

[Taf the Ghost]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

That's different and not google's fault...

No, google executives can't go to jail over it.

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-story-of-joseph-nacchio-and-the-nsa-2013-6

 

You seem new to this stuff. Normally everyone plays along because they'll just destroy your reputation, but, occasionally, they'll burn people out that go against the interests of the major players. Just to make examples.

 

Of course, it all gets more confusing because there is massive factional fights going on right now in nearly all Western countries. Big Tech/Big Government alliance is going to be on the receiving end of a lot of legal authorities as power factions are changed. I've got no sympathy for Big Tech. All they had to ever do was play things open & reasonably fair. I look forward to them being burned to the ground.

[EarthWormJM2]

11 minutes ago, Sauron said:

This is a complete misunderstanding of what censorship is. The rule of thumb is: if it's not enforced by the government, it's not censorship. If I owned a theatre and you wanted to perform a piece I don't like, not allowing you to do it on MY stage would not be censorship.

By your definition, no, it is not censorship... 

 

But by the actual definition of censorship, what YouTube does by suppressing those videos that they think are politically unacceptable to them is a form of censorship. You don't have to be able to be jailed and it doesn't have to come down from a government agency for it to be censorship. 

[Sauron]

5 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-story-of-joseph-nacchio-and-the-nsa-2013-6

 

You seem new to this stuff. Normally everyone plays along because they'll just destroy your reputation, but, occasionally, they'll burn people out that go against the interests of the major players. Just to make examples.

 

Of course, it all gets more confusing because there is massive factional fights going on right now in nearly all Western countries. Big Tech/Big Government alliance is going to be on the receiving end of a lot of legal authorities as power factions are changed. I've got no sympathy for Big Tech. All they had to ever do was play things open & reasonably fair. I look forward to them being burned to the ground.

Uhm... we were talking about youtube and you brought up a completely unrelated telecom ceo. If being "new to this stuff" means expecting some evidence when someone screams at censorship, then I guess I am new indeed. If youtube was being threatened by the government to remove right wing youtubers (pretty nonsensical considering the current US government is right wing and so was the Bush administration) there wouldn't be the current wildfire of alt right channels. If there is government enforced censorship against the right on youtube, it's doing a terrible job. Not to mention left wing youtubers regularly get demonetized as well.

[matrix07012]

48 minutes ago, Sauron said:

This is a complete misunderstanding of what censorship is. The rule of thumb is: if it's not enforced by the government, it's not censorship. If I owned a theatre and you wanted to perform a piece I don't like, not allowing you to do it on MY stage would not be censorship.

YouTube is a monopoly and does censor at the request of governments. For example the EU's constitution does allow it. I can't watch some people on YT, because of it.

 

https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship

Quote

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional (in USA).

[Sauron]

9 minutes ago, EarthWormJM2 said:

By your definition, no, it is not censorship... 

 

But by the actual definition of censorship, what YouTube does by suppressing those videos that they think are politically unacceptable to them is a form of censorship. You don't have to be able to be jailed and it doesn't have to come down from a government agency for it to be censorship. 

By your reasoning, if a publisher doesn't publish every single book it receives it's censorship. Refusing to host content on yout site is not suppressing that content.

 

-edit-

go ask Alex Jones if he wants to host leftist youtubers on infowars.com, tell him  he's censoring them when he refuses.

[matrix07012]

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

By your reasoning, if a publisher doesn't publish every single book it receives it's censorship. Refusing to host content on yout site is not suppressing that content.

Sites like YT, FB etc aren't publishers. Publishers are responsible for things they publish, YT, FB etc aren't.

[Sauron]

8 minutes ago, matrix07012 said:

Sites like YT, FB etc aren't publishers. Publishers are responsible for things they publish, YT, FB etc aren't.

Yes they are, they can't host illegal stuff. Besides, it's a distinction without difference.

 

-edit-

also I'd love to know how infowars.com is different if you think youtube should have different standards from a publisher.

[Taf the Ghost]

6 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Uhm... we were talking about youtube and you brought up a completely unrelated telecom ceo. If being "new to this stuff" means expecting some evidence when someone screams at censorship, then I guess I am new indeed. If youtube was being threatened by the government to remove right wing youtubers (pretty nonsensical considering the current US government is right wing and so was the Bush administration) there wouldn't be the current wildfire of alt right channels. If there is government enforced censorship against the right on youtube, it's doing a terrible job. Not to mention left wing youtubers regularly get demonetized as well.

Again, you seem new to this because you really don't understand how factional power systems work. You want an easy demarcation of groups, but that's not the way almost anything works. There is deep & active suppression of both the Right & Left, but specific factions of those political wings. (The Anti-corporate & anti-Globalist wings of both the Right & Left mostly.) It also spans the globe, as a few of the tech companies just wiped out the populist groups in Brazil this past week.

 

In fact, in most of the world, American Big Tech companies are tools of active suppression of political discourse, as anything that goes against the currently pushed narratives is labeled "far" and removed. In the USA, there is less direct intervention and far more indirect checking via the power networks. YouTube, especially, is allowed to exist in its current form because it's useful to a lot of factions, but, if Google ever thought itself too important, you'd be surprised how quickly Alphabet would get the full scale Anti-Trust treatment. (They really need it, but they fund enough lobbying to prevent it. For now.)

[matrix07012]

13 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Yes they are, they can't host illegal stuff. Besides, it's a distinction without difference.

If a publisher publishes illegal material, they get sued or charged with a crime. If someone uploads illegal material on YT, it's the uploader that's the offender, unless YT doesn't remove it when asked.

There are legal distinctions between the two.

[Kamina]

Google is pretty evil.

Whatever they're doing with China, they'll probably use whatever leftover code over in the US.

[Taf the Ghost]

10 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Yes they are, they can't host illegal stuff. Besides, it's a distinction without difference.

Under US Law, it's a distinction with so much difference it'll be the Laws under which Big Tech is destroyed. 

 

https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/230

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Again, you seem new to this because you really don't understand how factional power systems work. You want an easy demarcation of groups, but that's not the way almost anything works. There is deep & active suppression of both the Right & Left, but specific factions of those political wings. (The Anti-corporate & anti-Globalist wings of both the Right & Left mostly.) It also spans the globe, as a few of the tech companies just wiped out the populist groups in Brazil this past week.

 

In fact, in most of the world, American Big Tech companies are tools of active suppression of political discourse, as anything that goes against the currently pushed narratives is labeled "far" and removed. In the USA, there is less direct intervention and far more indirect checking via the power networks. YouTube, especially, is allowed to exist in its current form because it's useful to a lot of factions, but, if Google ever thought itself too important, you'd be surprised how quickly Alphabet would get the full scale Anti-Trust treatment. (They really need it, but they fund enough lobbying to prevent it. For now.)

I never said it's a good thing or that there isn't any manipulation involved. What I'm saying is that as long as you can host your own website expressing whatever opinion you want you're not being censored, and google or facebook simply don't have the power to censor you. They straight up can't. Only the government can censor you and prevent you from hosting your ideas on your private site.

1 minute ago, matrix07012 said:

If a publisher publishes illegal material, they get sued or charged with a crime. If someone uploads illegal material on YT, it's the uploader that's the offender, unless YT doesn't remove it when asked.

There are legal distinctions between the two.

That's because a regular publisher can be reasonably expected to read what they're going to publish before they do it. Youtube works differently, are you telling me it should be considered identical in a court of law? The law is functionally the same, youtube just gets some wiggle room so they have time to vet their content.

3 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Under US Law, it's a distinction with so much difference it'll be the Laws under which Big Tech is destroyed. 

 

https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/230

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

No difference when it comes to the analogy. You can't demand of a publisher that they print your (even perfectly legal) work if they don't want to. You're running circles around the core point; it can't be considered censorship if a private company doesn't want your work on their private site, and their reasons can be entirely their own. Are they pandering to advertisers? Their prerogative. Are they refusing to be associated with political ideals they despise or find in any way damaging to their company? Their right.

 

Google (the search engine) is a different beast because it opens the door for anticompetitive behaviour and, in this particular case, might be explicitly helping a tyrannical government suppress some content that isn't hosted on one of their sites. Search engines are the gate to the whole internet and, if its competitors were to be blocked by the great firewall due to a refusal to comply, Google might be the only way for anyone to find content online. This would be both a government enforced monopoly and censorship, and by obliging Google would be helping them. This is a situation where Google could actually make a stand; good luck using the internet at all if every major search engine is blocked. With that said, I don't know how much they would really obtain and how devastating losing the chinese market would be for their business model, so I can't say what they correct decision would be; surely, censored internet is better than none at all...?

[Trik'Stari]

It's almost as if communism is one of (if not the absolute most) the most evil forms of governance ever devised. Because it is the religion of government as god. At least if you're going by the standards of number of people killed, human rights violations, etc.

 

Communism gets away with their shit because they claim "the greater good" and present an unrealistic vision of what they actually do. While vilifying and demonizing any detractors in a very fascist way (which would be hilarious if it weren't so fucked up).

 

5 hours ago, Sauron said:

There is no censorship on youtube, google doesn't remove videos because the government told them to. This on the other hand would mean removing results as mandated by the government, which is censorship of google itself.

 

For our Chinese friends, I'll just leave this here: duckduckgo.com

I'd agree if it wasn't for the absolute monopoly that is Youtube and Google, Twitter and Facebook, etc. They check all the boxes to qualify as "public space" IMHO and therefore should absolutely be held to the standard of free speech. Either that or have to admit their bias upfront in an EU style "our policies have changed" manner.

 

Ignoring this style of censorship will essentially give more power over the population to these companies than our governments actually have. Our populations are willingly apart of these companies, and have become dependent upon them to be informed. Giving said companies the ability to decide what said people see, will essentially be giving them more power to control the population than has ever been witnessed in human history, at least in terms of sheer numbers.

 

I'm sorry but when things are bad enough or have a bad enough outlook that you have me of all people speaking up for government regulation, you've crossed a damned line.

 

 

If I were in some seat of government in the US currently I'd be 100% proposing some kind of action against google that would amount to financial harm equal to whatever the Chinese government is potentially offering them, or whatever they potentially stand to gain financially from a presence in China if they don't already have one.

[Sauron]

26 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

I'd agree if it wasn't for the absolute monopoly that is Youtube and Google, Twitter and Facebook, etc. They check all the boxes to qualify as "public space" IMHO and therefore should absolutely be held to the standard of free speech. Either that or have to admit their bias upfront in an EU style "our policies have changed" manner.

 

Ignoring this style of censorship will essentially give more power over the population to these companies than our governments actually have. Our populations are willingly apart of these companies, and have become dependent upon them to be informed. Giving said companies the ability to decide what said people see, will essentially be giving them more power to control the population than has ever been witnessed in human history, at least in terms of sheer numbers.

 

I'm sorry but when things are bad enough or have a bad enough outlook that you have me of all people speaking up for government regulation, you've crossed a damned line.

 

 

If I were in some seat of government in the US currently I'd be 100% proposing some kind of action against google that would amount to financial harm equal to whatever the Chinese government is potentially offering them, or whatever they potentially stand to gain financially from a presence in China if they don't already have one.

I agree that more regulation may be necessary for sites like youtube and facebook, but I don't think it would result in extremists getting more visibility. It would probably be great for educational and niche content though, linux channels for example get constantly demonetized for no discernible reason.

 

Regulating it like this however may kill google's interest in keeping the website running though, it's not profitable as it is and it would get worse if it were declared to be a public space. It would also set a weird precedent - what counts as too big?

 

Also yes, they should absolutely do a better job of clarifying what they will or will not accept on their site.