Google

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search
GoogleEvil.png
In 1995, two 20-something Ph.D. students from Stanford were looking for something to do their dissertations on, and decided that they should focus on a Web crawler and indexer research. Once they found funding and a revenue stream based on advertising, they became what's known in the Valley as a Unicorn: a multi-billion dollar company. And their saga from College Dormitory Culture to Corporate Cult began. Unfortunately, explosively rapid successes skip normal growth and maturing processes in corporations, and can create cults (or at least cult-like behavior). There's a line between corporate culture and conformity to the corporate line or expulsion, and that line seems to often get crossed at the Googleplex, without any of the normal checks and balances that might apply at a more moderate corporation.


Break up Google? -
GoogMonopoly.jpg
Should Google be broken up? My Libertarian PoV is to use that as the tool of last resort, and I don't think we've tried the others yet. But I do think there's plenty of room to make sure they're following certain rules. If they're a communication platform (absolved from liability of what people post), then they can only curate for crimes, not their own bias. If they want to curate, then they're an editorial (publishing) platform, and they should be subject to liability for everything they get wrong and it hurts people. Pick one. But my view is in the minority, here's a lot more on folks that think they should be broken up and regulated (even far left outfits that like their bias):
  • New York Times, of course doesn't care about their actions against conservatives, their case against Google is based on the businesses they've rolled over and competition they've crushed, that their scale makes them ripe. (They also littered it with the usual leftist fallacies and falsehoods about Standard Oil, and the imaginary heroism of big government protecting us from runaway corporatism). [1]
  • The Guardian argues as most socialist outfits do, that the public should control the means of production and information. Since they acquired other companies, and added value to the public, they are bad, and must be owned by the masses. [2]
  • USAToday takes a surprising direction that since they're big, powerful, and Sundar (their CEO) was completely wrong in firing James Damore (which I agree with), that Sundar must be fired, and we can never trust the company to do self-driving cars or other things, until they're broken up. (Seem a little extreme to me). [3]
  • Boston Globe (Editorial Board), since they're 90 percent of all Internet searches, they are a monopoly. Of course that's not a very broad thinking view, since more searches are being done mobile, targeted product searching, social media, or voice, which aren't counted in those specs, and Google is losing power, not gaining it (in those other areas). As well as being a monopoly isn't a problem, abusing the power or being anti-competitive is. So the article seems illogical to me, because it's saying breakup for the sake of breaking them up (begging the question fallacy), not because of what they do that's wrong, or what breaking them up would do to make things better. [4]
Google Bias -
GoeeblesGoogle.png
Examples of Google Bias include:
  • 90% of their donations have been to Democrats - that's not what diversity of thought looks like.
  • Google got caught in an email chain, admitting they tried to fix the 2016 election for Hillary, that's worse than what Russia did, since they had more impact. While they did manipulate the public to get hispanic turn-out, Hispanics/Latino's came out more for Trump than Romney or McCain, far more than they figured they would. It also turns out that the NYT knew about the story but suppressed it like it was the John Edwards scandal. Citizens United (something Democrats oppose) allows Google to do this contribution legally, IF THEY DISCLOSE IT, but the fact that they didn't, implies there's a crime involved. [5]
  • Dozens of employees flowed freely between jobs at Google or the Clinton staff. [6]
  • Google got caught many times manipulating Autocomplete suggestions in search, to filter out, or add in, things that were obviously biased. They claim it is accidental, but when virtually all accidents seem to go against conservatives (or for Hillary Clinton), and they don't show up in Bing, Yahoo, or other search engines, it hints that there's a taint/bias somewhere. And it isn't random. (Remember, later Google got caught in email threads admitting they were trying to swing the election towards Hillary in Latino turn-out, so who believes they didn't try in regular election as well?) [7]
  • Climate Science searches are intentionally biased so that people find Climate Scarism more than Climate Realism articles. That's softer than political searches which are about twice as likely to return liberal views on a topic than conservative ones. [8] Here's a page of 400 Links that are being suppressed or manipulated. Even if some are wrong, the facts that it appears this way to so many, proves they're not good at communication or transparency. [9]
  • "The New America Foundation" was created with $21M from Google and has Eric Schmidt on it and Google's board. This is a far left and Google advocacy front that uses it's political power to intimidate/buy Politicians and fire or pressure academics that say things they disagree with, like supporting anti-trust actions against Google. [10]
  • Google has funded/supported many left wing hate groups like SPLC, Sleeping Giants (a group that exists to mislabel conservative organizations as racists), or starting false-front "immigration" groups that really exist to undermine Trump or immigration enforcement (support OpenBorders). [11]
  • Steve Yegge left Google, and explained why he didn't have to get James Damore'd to see the writing on the wall. Both about how uninspiring they were, political, and biased. [12]
  • When Dr. Robert Epstein released details on a project to monitor big tech to make sure they're not injecting bias, and being transparent, shockingly, Google snubbed such efforts at increasing the transparency and trust of services that Google offers. They then went on to attack Epstein for creating conspiracy theories, even if they're well documented facts. [13]
Google Censorship -
SalilMehta.jpg
This is the mysterious opacity with which Google operates, they don't fully document the rules nor document how people didn't comply with the rules. They operate like a secret police: you know your relatives have been disappeared, but not what to do about it, and they feel no need to justify their action to the proles, and if you complain too loud, you might be disappeared as well. Why would anyone resent that? Examples include:
  • Statistics professor Salil Mehta (adjunct professor at Columbia and Georgetown who teaches probability and data science, and wrote a best-selling statistics book), was banned by Google for no known reason other than, "You violated the Terms of use", but we won't tell you why/where/how. Then after an article in Zero Hedge explaining his side of the story, and poof: restored. Again, no idea why, and no response from Google. [14]
  • They banned what they consider Neo-Nazi sites like Daily Stormer. I think those sites are detestable, but I'd rather them in clear site than working in the dark where I can't see them. And Google's hypocrisy about banishing White Separatists while tolerating Black (BLM, Nation of Islam, Black Panthers), Latino (La Raza, etc), or anti-semitic (BDS, PLO, etc), is dangerously hypocritical and inconsistent. [15]
  • Even their Advertising is biased. They did things like rejected Christian publisher for too religious of ads. [16]. They got caught trying to demonetize Breitbart News from its AdSense platform when Google ad account manager Aidan Wilks was advising another company that advertising on Breitbart may impact their “brand safety.” (how it gets shown). [17] I'm sorry, I thought you were an ad platform, not a paid for advocacy group that suppresses freedom of expression/religion, or attack conservative websites. If it was an anti-semitic pro-palestine (BDS), or pro-Islam piece, or Marxist propaganda, they would have no problem with it.
  • For the first 8 years, Google App Store has virtually no controls on anything, anything goes... unless you support smoking cigarettes or guns. Sergey Brin doesn't like those, so there was a block on Apps that add value in either of those legal areas, but plenty of illegal activities including drugs or smoking pot, prostitution, hooking up, communications or asset transfers which helped criminal enterprises, and so on -- those were helped by Applications that weren't things Sergey cared about. This doesn't make Google good or bad, but it shatters the illusion that they're anything other than a billionaire's plaything: if you're a hard working American in an industry/sector that Google Management doesn't like, they'll screw you over. And if you're a pedophile or human trafficker, they might help you (as long as there's no liability back to them). That's what "Do no Evil" means to them.
  • Google is working on things like "Jigsaw", which is way to auto-censor/filter out "toxicity" that they don't like, under the false flag of making us safer (from ideas we don't like). But even left of center folks recognize that the rules being applied equally might not play out well for them (in the face of things like their side's "racism", "impeachment", or "Hitler" Tourettes). [18]. Or Filter Bubbles, where they try to pool up like minded thinkers and filter out things that offend/stretch them and make them grow/mature as humans. [19]
  • Google isn't quite as aggressive with FakeNews management as Facebook is, but they're trying both in filtering their searches and creating their own curated News for Android, not based on intelligence but on artificial intelligence and consensus. It's an impossible task: try to explain satire to a computer algorithm, or to a politically correct snowflake or SJW. Combine that with herd think and filter bubbles, and you're not filtering on FakeNews you're creating doublethink truthspeaking cult that Orwell warned us about. [20]
Google Cult -
GoogleCult.jpg
Give academic college snowflakes more money than many governments, and tell them that they were the smartest kids in the room (like their mommies did), and they might believe you. And their obscene success means they skip a lot of life's harder lessons, and the wisdom that usually imparts. They get to invent a culture based on a College Kids idealism and naiveté, with unexpected (for them) results.

Sloganeering and their own "in" lingo, hiring and work practices that they thought skimmed the very best, was actually a filter against intellectual diversity, and seems more in home in Jonestown, Guyana than in Silicon Valley. Even their unofficial motto, "Don't be Evil", begs the question, "what is Evil?" -- and to them it was a college marxists view of the world to hate everything they were going to become. So in order to be a good employee you had to put your corporations evolving ethics above your own, or you left (or were driven out). And the stock growth was enough to keep most people in place, becoming more evil, while seeing everyone that disagreed with them as outsiders (and thus Evil). They became their parents.

Google History -
Google1997.png
Google was created as a slightly better Yahoo (search engine), got $25M in investment, and because it didn't need to make money, managed to be better by being simpler and not having ads or money streams while it was gaining marketshare. Then once customers were using it, they reversed course, bought a bunch of ad companies (which they integrated) and became a money machine. And used their ad revenue as a way to subsidize free services (like gmail, google maps, etc), which harvested users data, to sell more ads. With Google, remember, your privacy is what they lease to the highest bidder, in the form of ad impressions.
Google Privacy -
GooglePrivacy.jpg
Google and Privacy are oxymoronic: you are the product that they sell (your information is used by them, or sold by them to advertisers). You don't pay Google in dollars/fees/licenses, you pay them by letting them watch everything you do, and selling that to others. So they protect your data/privacy from everyone but them, and those that pay them. You can be fine with that trade, but you need to know it's happening, and they have made many "mistakes" on the side of oversharing:
  • The Verge on "The Selfish Ledger" - a disturbing concept to reshape humanity with data. (1984 was supposed to be a warning not a business plan). [21]
  • Google promised the FTC to get affirmative consent (a "OK" checkbox) before sharing customers data from Applications. Then they broke their promise. Many times. They paid a $22.5 million fine from the Obama administration’s Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for doing it. Then did it again.[22]
  • Google acquired the Ad Platform DoubleClick (and their customers) under one set of rules (no sharing of personal information), and then moved their model to the exact opposite (targeted advertising and sharing of personal information to get better ads).
  • Google has more of your private data than Facebook, yet Facebook gets the heat. (Google has more lobbyists and spends more buying Washington, which might have something to do with that). [23]
Google Project Maven -
GoogleMaven.png
The Government has a program to research AI (Artificial Intelligence) and imaging, hopefully to reduce collateral damage with Drones, or recognize things of interest, and thus save lives. But if you put things through a garbage filter (like Google's academic hiring one), you're going to filter for a lot of young/naive/far-left Social Justice Warriors, that get upset over things like Google working with the military on things that would save American or other lives, as long as it includes the word, "military" in it. This caused snowflake drifts of anger, that couldn't get plowed through with mere facts, common sense, or education. I mean why fight to educate your flock on why national defense (or combatting terrorists) might be in their best interests, when you can first try to be secretive, and then when that fails, just give up on the effort? There's no reasoning with stupid. And being sneaky about what you're doing to keep from upsetting the hoard, may not be overtly evil, but a lack of transparency is the fertilizer in which evil grows. And capitulating to the dumb (or evil) because it's unpopular, isn't any better. But it's the Google Way™.
Google Sexual Harassment -
GoogleSexHarassment.jpeg
Google got caught shielding some sexual harassers like Andy Rubin, the ‘Father of Android’ and paying him $90 million dollar golden parachutes, while firing 48 others without pay. That's not exactly being friendly to Women's causes, while pretending to care, and supporting the idea that everyone else had problems.
Google TGIF video -
Googleft.jpg
Google has these all-hands meetings called TGIF (Thank Google it's Friday), not that you get weekends off, but because all goodness comes from your Googley overlords. Well, someone Keistered out a thumb drive with the entire video of what happened the day after Hillary lost the election to Donald Trump in 2016, and it was a doozie. Serge Brin, Larry Page, VPs Kent Walker and Eileen Naughton, CFO Ruth Porat, and CEO Sundar Pichai are all snowflake meltdown mode, with hug sessions (seriously), letting the staff know that despite their best efforts to interfere in an election through illegal silent donations to Hillary Campaign (and get-out-the-Latino-vote efforts), that she still lost. But that their management was there to fight the forces of fascism, against the electorate that were "low information" voters who only voted for Trump because they were bored racists, and that they would continue to work to bend the nation/world to their will in the future, and help avoid the world war that the right wanted to start. Seriously, that's only slightly paraphrased. It was their way of telling the company that while they value diversity, it doesn't apply to whites, males, conservatives or anyone who didn't vote for Hillary. [24]

To put the cherry on top, we find out that the NYT had this video since March, but squashed the story like it was a Harvey Weinstein or John Edwards scandal. The New York Times, all the news that's fit to suppress. [25]
Google and China -
GoogleChina.jpg
Google decided that in order to get allowed into China, they would censor their results (blacklist sensitive queries) according to what the Chinese Government wanted. This is the first step, down a very slippery slope, into facilitating tyranny? Google's ex-head of Free Expression (Lokman Tsui) called this disturbing [26] -- and for good reason. Another 5 quit because of their policy with regards to China, according to one of them (Jack Poulson)[27] Look, Google can do what they want and admit the all-mighty dollar (or Yuan) outweighs ethical concerns, just don't pretend you follow the, "Do No Evil" credo after helping to facilitate what has been one of the most murderous and oppressive regimes in History. You don't get to sob about Trump winning the election, then censor and scan data for the Chinese Communists. Just pick one standard. This is the same company that was attacked by employees for aiding the U.S.'s military interest (as too nefarious: Google Project Maven), but the Chinese Secret Thought-Police? That is fine, since Google is more politically aligned with the chicom's.
James Damore -
JamesDamore.jpg
This is the story of Media Lies, Google Hypocrisy, and what happens when someone (James Damore) decides to tell the truth in Progressive America, "Burn the witch, after all, he said the same thing that science, common sense, and Google's own lawyers say in court!" Google encourages people to speak their minds, then fires them if they don't say what they want, then claims they're still all about free speech, just not THAT! In the end, Google proved they're not only an echo chamber, but one with blindfolds, guns and itchy trigger fingers.
YouTube -
YouTubeLogo.jpg
YouTube (a division of Google) has a specially abusive place when it comes to the world of selective censorship - that only seems to apply to truths liberals hate to hear. Some examples include:
  • Legal Insurrection got censored because they showed how Palestinian children are exploited for the cameras. Note the same standard does not apply to claims against Israel (as many others had shown those videos without getting banned). [28]
  • PragerU's was suppressed/censored (silently), with no evidence offered that anything they have said it wrong, untrue, or racist. They do expose misleading beliefs of the far left, so that appears reason to block or punish them. [29]
  • YouTube went on a crusade against guns, first you couldn't sell guns, then promote guns, and so on. They terminated gun parts channels, like Brownells. They're inventing laws and changing terms that are against the spirit of our constitution. [30]
  • As part of a NYT Expose by Project Veritas (James O'keefe), they caught the NYT editor Nick Dudich explaining how he was using friendships and coordination with YouTube (Earnest Pettie) to manipulate social media to intentionally influence the news. [31] YouTube was being a tool of evil, to work against a free election.

Every company has a right to decide who they support or not. But the problem is Google/YouTube PRETENDS to be an open platform (and community service). Yet, they're not doing what they advertise. If they openly admitted in their policies that they're a left-of-center advocacy site that will censor center/right positions at will, then at least that would be honest.

Conclusion

Free market icon, Milton Friedman singled out “deception or fraud” as unacceptable free market behavior. In Capitalism and Freedom Friedman clearly said: “there is one and only one social responsibility of business to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.”

I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether they think acquiring customers based on one set of rules, then changing the rules after they've already vested in the platform or technologies is fraud or not.

References

  1. NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/magazine/the-case-against-google.html?mtrref=undefined&gwh=349E36D091359ACE5CDA96B0D80B20DA&gwt=pay
  2. Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/30/nationalise-google-facebook-amazon-data-monopoly-platform-public-interest
  3. USAToday: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/14/sundar-pichai-decison-to-fire-james-damore-over-google-memo-raises-trust-question-reynolds-column/564400001/
  4. Boston Globe: http://apps.bostonglobe.com/opinion/graphics/2018/06/break-google/?p1=Article_Trending_Most_Viewed
  5. Hillary:
  6. Hillary revolving door:
  7. Autocomplete:
  8. Climate: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/08/a-method-of-google-search-bias-quantification-and-its-application-in-climate-debate-and-general-political-discourse/
  9. 400 Links: http://www.govtslaves.com/2017-08-29-bookmark-this-over-400-links-google-doesnt-want-you-to-visit.html
  10. New America Foundation:
  11. Google Funding left wing hate groups:
  12. Steve Yegge: https://medium.com/@steve.yegge/why-i-left-google-to-join-grab-86dfffc0be84
  13. Attacking Epstein:
  14. Salil Mahta:
  15. Neo Nazi's:
  16. Fuck Christians:
  17. Demonetizing Breitbart: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/02/13/exclusive-google-employees-are-trying-to-pull-ad-revenue-from-breitbart-news/
  18. Jigsaw:
  19. Filter Bubbles:
  20. Fake News:
  21. The Selfish Ledger: https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/17/17344250/google-x-selfish-ledger-video-data-privacy
  22. Privacy Fails:
  23. More Data than FB: https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-has-more-of-your-personal-data-than-facebook-try-google-1524398401
  24. Video: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google-leaderships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/ https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/10/silent-donation-corporate-emails-reveal-google-executives-efforts-to-swing-election-to-hillary-clinton-with-latino-outreach-campaign/
  25. NYT: https://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2018/09/13/nolte-new-york-times-covered-up-google-tapes-most-newsworthy-details/
  26. Lokman Tsui: https://theintercept.com/2018/08/10/google-censorship-plan-is-not-right-and-stupid-says-former-google-head-of-free-expression/
  27. Jack Poulson: https://theintercept.com/2018/09/13/google-china-search-engine-employee-resigns/
  28. Legal Insurrection: https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/03/youtube-censors-our-video-showing-palestinian-child-exploitation-for-the-cameras/
  29. PragerU:
  30. Guns: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/youtube-guns-brownells-channel-shut-down/amp/
  31. YouTube: