Leaked Google Document shows the shift towards Censorship

[rcmaehl]

Source:

Scribd

The Verge

 

TL;DR:

An leaked document states that Tech companies now "control the majority of online conversations” and have undertaken a “shift towards censorship”. Google states the document should be considered internal research, and not an official company position.

 

Media:

 

Quotes/Excerpts:

Quote

A leaked research presentation... shows the extent to which the search giant is grappling with decisions around freedom of speech and censorship. The presentation...is titled “The Good Censor.” The aim,...is to “reassure the world that [Google] protects users from harmful conduct while still supporting free speech.” The slides are a rare and stark look at Google’s ongoing struggles, which are mirrored by many Silicon Valley tech platforms, including Facebook and Twitter. Essentially, the company is asking itself whether it’s possible to protect against the negative aspects of free speech...violent threats, fake news, bots, trolling, propaganda, and election interference. Google says in the presentation that the internet was founded on “utopian principles of free speech.” Google’s presentation acknowledges that “censorship can give governments and companies the tools to limit the freedom of individuals,” but it also lays out all the reason why tech platforms...are responsible for policing what happens on their apps and websites. Google notes in the slides how government takedown requests have tripled in the last two years, and how YouTube is now the target of a majority of these requests, with Google Search behind it. The slides conclude that transparency, consistency, and responsiveness are paramount in addressing this ongoing imbalance, and that there is not a “right amount of censorship” that will please everyone and solve these issues.

 

Google's Response:

Quote

In response to the leak, Google has said the research is not indicative of any official company position, but rather research to better understand how users think about these key issues. In a statement, the company told The Verge, “Google is committed to free expression — supporting the free flow of ideas is core to our mission. Where we have developed our own content policies, we enforce them in a politically neutral way. Giving preference to content of one political ideology over another would fundamentally conflict with our goal of providing services that work for everyone.”

 

My Thoughts:

It should be no surprise that moderation of content is required on the internet. Bad actors, automated spam, and fake accounts would overrun most sites. With the fact anyone can make as many accounts as they would like and the anonymity that comes with it, it makes internet free speech a massive struggle compared to actual vocal speech.

[DVA]

More censorship... a necessary evil at times...

[Levent]

this kind of stuff needs to be done without the public knowledge imo, now that people know google is starting to censor results whats going to stop them from complying to govermental requests? (ayy I wonder how will it take for erdogan learn about this)

[Evanair]

Seeing as the original source is Breitbart, I'll take this with a gain of salt. Most likely propaganda from them.

 

That said, seeing as Google did confirm it is authentic...

 

If people push back hard enough, Google will just go offshore and be able to do whatever they want without legislation from the US, such as to Europe if they are actually modeling after the European censorship model.

 

Google makes more money than a significant number of countries GDP (in 2014 it was would be country number 70 if a list was made). They have a ton of power and once they go offshore, no amount of legislation from the US can touch them.

[Tech_Dreamer]

  restricting information in it's pure form just to cover up something truthful is bad, But Restricting information that is false pretending to be the truth is right.  here's the grey line stands in it's full glory . the people controlling the data comes to play with their individual policies on what to show. this isnt about outside governing, it includes inside manipulation of policies as well.

 

what bugs me is this idea of control that is dangerous & has power to mislead people with targeted projected info for an extended time ,   In a nutshell it's like a church controlled library& imagine you're growing up around it , you wanna know if god exist? look at the wide array of books that support our specific theory which we reviewed and approved for you to read that doesn't counter our arguments. You get the idea.  Church is good & right.  to the extend it controls what people hear & see & tell them how to think.

[TacoSenpai]

So they're for a free and open internet right?

[toor]

23 minutes ago, rcmaehl said:

The aim,...is to “reassure the world that [Google] protects users from harmful conduct while still supporting free speech.

 

When will the left learn these are mutually _exclusive_, in the literal way.  So long as Tech companies are echo chambers you cannot have one without the other since they will by definition be at odds.

 

I don't need Google to protect me from harmful conduct of people.  I need them to protect me from themselves and other tech companies.  Their business model is selling out humanity to pay for over priced Starbucks coffee and Apple hardware.

 

Expect the author(s) to be terminated much like their "Diversity" leak.

[Evanair]

2 minutes ago, Tech_Dreamer said:

Restricting information that is false pretending to be the truth is right

This is the difference between a public forum and that of a publisher. There are a ton of protections for a public forum, where as a publisher has responsibility for things it puts out to the world.

 

Google enjoys the freedom of a public forum, as they aren't responsible for their users content.  If they become arbiters of information and are no longer a public forum, they lose their protection.

 

It's a fine line they are trying to walk and it could bite them in the ass legally

[PlayStation 2]

Give 'em an inch, they'll take literally everything they can.

[D13H4RD]

Don't be evil, they said

[TacoSenpai]

43 minutes ago, DVA said:

a necessary evil at times...

Or you know just an evil...I have a hard time coming up with a time censorship has been used for "good or civility" but that's neither here nor there. 

[toor]

Why the disclaimer at the top all the sudden?  The article is about censorship, oddly enough by doing that @Crunchy Dragon  you're giving a perfect example of what's wrong with the Internet.  There hasn't been anything uncivil discussed.

[mynameisjuan]

Well news is becoming more and more overblown and focusing on race/gender and only leaning towards negativity just to get views, I am caring less and less about censorship. 

 

I honestly cant blame any company for censoring with the law suits, riots, complaints from the people these days. Id say fuck it and block shit too if I had to hear from them constantly

[GDRRiley]

21 minutes ago, toor said:

Why the disclaimer at the top all the sudden?  The article is about censorship, oddly enough by doing that @Crunchy Dragon  you're giving a perfect example of what's wrong with the Internet.  There hasn't been anything uncivil discussed.

there hasn't its just a friendly reminder to some of our members who will go crazy over this. 

Its common in any thread thats likely to divest into arguments over politics. 

[toor]

16 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

there hasn't its just a friendly reminder to some of our members who will go crazy over this. 

Its common in any thread thats likely to divest into arguments over politics. 

 

I odn't follow, there hasn't ... what?  The disclaimer is most certainly there.  Point was upto now no one was discussing politics, thus there isn't a need to preemtively "warn" anyone.  Doing so implies there were.  Aka "virtue signaling".   There was no dicussion of murder either but I don't see a warning about those.   

 

Guess what I take issue with more is "non-political" vs "civil".   Kinda funny and related is discord just spammed the hell out of everyone reminding them to vote, including peple who are not even in the US.

 

 

[Evanair]

7 minutes ago, toor said:

 

I odn't follow, there hasn't ... what?  The disclaimer is most certainly there.  Point was upto now no one was discussing politics, thus there isn't a need to preemtively "warn" anyone.  Doing so implies there were.  Aka "virtue signaling".   There was no dicussion of murder either but I don't see a warning about those.   

 

Guess what I take issue with more is "non-political" vs "civil".   Kinda funny and related is discord just spammed the hell out of everyone reminding them to vote, including peple who are not even in the US.

 

 

Stop derailing the thread. It was a message of civility and reminding people they are on a tech forum not one based on politics.

 

And back on topic...

 

The idea of the "Good Censorship" is at odds with some employees quitting over the algorithm being developed in accordance with the Chinese government. It seems rather hypocritical of employees to protest quit one project and not another when they are based on a similar mindset.

[poochyena]

Even 4chan removes some content, its just a question of what they remove.

[Roamable]

So much for don't be evil! I think that's a policy they haven't followed in a long time.

 

I know for a fact that Google have been filtering sentiment for years. Not only is there a lot of info out there about it, but I actually decided to sign up to one of those free blogs and publish a 'negative' review of a shitty product I had tried.

 

It never did make it onto Google, yet shows up on Bing, DuckDuckGo etc. The only reason big general review sites make it through is because the sentiment isn't one or the other, so overall it comes across positive or neutral.

[toor]

1 minute ago, Evanair said:

Stop derailing the thread. It was a message of civility and reminding people they are on a tech forum not one based on politics.

 

And back on topic...

 

??  The topic IS about this exact kind of of censorship.  I don't think you understand what Poltics are.

 

1 minute ago, Evanair said:

The idea of the "Good Censorship" is at odds with some employees quitting over the algorithm being developed in accordance with the Chinese government. It seems rather hypocritical of employees to protest quit one project and not another when they are based on a similar mindset.

 

Where are you getting that from?  It refers to their censorship position in general and yes, the issue is part of it but not the sole reason behind it.

 

 

[Evanair]

3 minutes ago, toor said:

Where are you getting that from?  It refers to their censorship position in general and yes, the issue is part of it but not the sole reason behind it.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/16/technology/google-employees-protest-search-censored-china.html
 

I skipped the first few news links on google search as they are from pretty right-leaning sources, feel free to look them up.

 

And I agree, it's not the only issue, which is why I said similar instead of the same. Censorship comes in different levels. Removing people from a theatre for talking is technically censorship, but it's disruptive so we tollerate it.  So is punishing people for swearing or limiting what people can and cannot wear for decency reasons.  It's part of civilization, we give up some of our freedoms in understanding that it is for the greater good for us all to get along.

 

It's when taken to far, beyong the necessity for people to get along and into the realm of control and power, that what we commonly refer to as censorship becomes a problem.

[Drak3]

1 hour ago, LordOTaco said:

Or you know just an evil...I have a hard time coming up with a time censorship has been used for "good or civility" but that's neither here nor there. 

Child porn and the censorship thereof.

[toor]

6 minutes ago, Evanair said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/16/technology/google-employees-protest-search-censored-china.html
 

 

And?  You're linking to an article from two months ago, what does that have to do with this post?

7 minutes ago, Evanair said:

I skipped the first few news links on google search as they are from pretty right-leaning sources, feel free to look them up.

 

Interesting choice of words, you dismiss the links entirely because they are "right leaning" yet have no problem with left..  Glad to know we have an unbiased opinion here.

 

8 minutes ago, Evanair said:

And I agree, it's not the only issue, which is why I said similar instead of the same. Censorship comes in different levels.

No...  you gave China as the reason for this document.

 

9 minutes ago, Evanair said:

Removing people from a theatre for talking is technically censorship, but it's disruptive so we tollerate it. 

 

Maybe to some it is, thankfully the majority of people do not.  Don't think you understand what censorship is.

 

11 minutes ago, Evanair said:

So is punishing people for swearing or limiting what people can and cannot wear for decency reasons.  It's part of civilization, we give up some of our freedoms in understanding that it is for the greater good for us all to get along.

 

You definitely have no idea what it it is.  I'm continuing this because although you're trying to derail it yourself, I think I can bring it back.   You, like Google employees, believe in such sillyness.  We don't "tollerate" the examples you gave, at least some of us understand you've broken no law.  Talking in a theater is not a crime, creating a disturbance IS (interesting you didn't use the typicall example of yelling fire in one??).   

 

We don't give up freedoms for the  greater good.  We don't get offended to begin with.  Knowing when to stand up is part of a healthu democracy.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, toor said:

Knowing when to stand up is part of a healthu democracy.

1. Not a democracy.
2. Democracy is cannot be healthy. It is mob rule and mob rule us inherently evil.

[samcool55]

Well i guess the quote "you either die as a hero or live nog enough to see yourself become the villain" is once again true...

[TacoSenpai]

9 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Child porn and the censorship thereof.

Fair point. Also illegal by federal law as is call to violence things which are defined.  The problem I have with how "civility" is defined is that it is such a vague definition like "hate speech" that could be applied to anything they deem fit.  In fact Google might as just cut the crap and just come out and say that.