Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

breitbart.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 486 posts

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#41

Post by rsj_hn »

tcbawo wrote: post #6

Is it really surprising that a multinational company would have a preferred candidate? Although, I'm sure they lobbied extensively for all major candidates. It is interesting that both major parties seem to want to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to free speech, "common carrier", and antitrust issues.

No, it's not surprising at all. Every company has a preferred candidate in pretty much every election, at least the CEO and top leadership certainly does.

What is surprising is turning an all hands into a kind of mass grieving funeration for all of their 90K employees, replete with publicly weeping executives and the entire executive leadership being vocally outraged. Turning an all hands into a political event like this is both unprofessional and, frankly, creepy.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#42

Post by roenxi »

gizmo686 wrote: post #35
jiojfdsal3 wrote: post #20

"(00:54:33) An employee asks what Google is going to do about “misinformation” and “fake news” shared by “low-information voters.” Pichai responds by stating that “investments in machine learning and AI” are a “big opportunity” to fix the problem." Anyone find this disturbing? They're trying to use AI to manipulate what users 'should' see?

That is literally what Google was founded on. Their core technology behind their initial success was pagerank, an algorithm whose sole purpose is to manipulate what people see. They have stayed dominant through a combination of market forces, and keeping their algorithm near (or, IMO at) the top of the market for generalized search [0], and have leveraged this competency in other markets (video, ads, etc). Beyond jus…

I value political neutrality in the workplace, so I have a lot of in-principle issues with what is being shown here right from the get-go. I didn't wind the video back to find the exact quote, but we now have publicised evidence of senior leadership at Google who stood up and said 'obviously our values are not the same as a big chunk of Americans'. Clearly a lot of them are specific Hillary supporters, a candidate so unelectable she lost to Trump.

There is a practical difference between pagerank, which is a transparent algorithm, and a non-transparent magic algorithm that is controlled by a group who are clearly not engaged with the idea of corporate political neutrality. Taking the views expressed here as a starting point, logically why shouldn't they try to tilt the election result using their power?

EDIT I'm just going to add this in because it just doesn't sit well. It shouldn't acceptable for leadership in a workplace to stand up and express pain and dismay at the outcome of a democratic process.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#43

Post by gizmo686 »

JohnBooty wrote: post #36
tcbawo wrote: post #6

Is it really surprising that a multinational company would have a preferred candidate? Although, I'm sure they lobbied extensively for all major candidates. It is interesting that both major parties seem to want to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to free speech, "common carrier", and antitrust issues.

Wanting to improve their news algorithm to favor more trustworthy sources is not a violation of free speech. "Free speech" guarantees you the right to say what you want, as long as it doesn't interfere with others' freedoms (i.e., making death threats or yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater) "Free speech" does not guarantee you a platform for your protected free speech. I have the right to claim blatantly false…

The first amendment does not prevent Google (or any other company) from restricting speech. That is a very low bar.

The distinction between government and private groups is not a clean as you might think. At a large enough scale, private groups can start to take on a role in society that resembles that of a government, should we not then expect them to be held to a standard that resembles that we expect of governments?

The FCC cannot revoke your spectrum license for saying Obama shot JFK. Should ISPs be able to revoke your internet license for saying that?

Google is a much harder case, because the core service they provide is filtering; and that filtering is an immensely valuable public service. But given the role that filtering plays in society, is is not an area that should be left unregulated.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#44

Post by dang »

lanestp wrote: post #39
dang wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That site has been banned on HN for years. We're happy to make exceptions for specific cases where there's a substantive post, though, like this one.

I have to ask, why a site like Breitbart which has broken a lot of substantive stories would be banned? I’ve seen less credible left leaning sites on HN. I’m hoping there is a really good reason because right now I am concerned.

Because most submissions have been off-topic or otherwise against the site guidelines. Same reason why we'd ban any site.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#45

Post by sdenton4 »

lanestp wrote: post #39
dang wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That site has been banned on HN for years. We're happy to make exceptions for specific cases where there's a substantive post, though, like this one.

I have to ask, why a site like Breitbart which has broken a lot of substantive stories would be banned? I’ve seen less credible left leaning sites on HN. I’m hoping there is a really good reason because right now I am concerned.

Well, let's see what Wikipedia has to say about Breitbart's history...

'Breitbart News Network (known commonly as Breitbart News, Breitbart or Breitbart.com) is a far-right[6] syndicated American news, opinion and commentary[7][8] website founded in mid-2007 by conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart, who conceived it as "the Huffington Post of the right."[4][9][10] Its journalists are widely considered to be ideologically driven, and some of its content has been called misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by liberals and many traditional conservatives alike.[11] The site has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories,[12][13][14][15][16] and intentionally misleading stories.[17][18]

'Breitbart News aligned with the alt-right under the management of former executive chairman Steve Bannon,[19] who declared the website "the platform for the alt-right" in 2016.[20] In 2016, Breitbart News became a virtual rallying spot for supporters of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.[11] The company's management, together with former staff member Milo Yiannopoulos, solicited ideas for stories from, and worked to advance and market ideas of, neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups and individuals.[21][22] After the election, more than 2,000 organizations removed Breitbart News from ad buys following Internet activism campaigns denouncing the site's controversial positions.[23][24][25][26]'

So... pretty low credibility. They break substantive stories when they're useful to their agenda, but also break false stories when they're useful to their agenda. I'm curious what you consider to be a 'less credible left leaning site'?

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#46

Post by peterwwillis »

jiojfdsal3 wrote: post #20

"(00:54:33) An employee asks what Google is going to do about “misinformation” and “fake news” shared by “low-information voters.” Pichai responds by stating that “investments in machine learning and AI” are a “big opportunity” to fix the problem." Anyone find this disturbing? They're trying to use AI to manipulate what users 'should' see?

What media organization on this planet doesn't make decisions about what users should and shouldn't see? Breitbart does it, The New York Times does it, your local news channels do it.

Google as a news broker is literally just showing you what Google wants to show you. I don't know why you'd think they wouldn't have a bias, or filter their output based on it. All media does.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#47

Post by dmead »

jiojfdsal3 wrote: post #20

"(00:54:33) An employee asks what Google is going to do about “misinformation” and “fake news” shared by “low-information voters.” Pichai responds by stating that “investments in machine learning and AI” are a “big opportunity” to fix the problem." Anyone find this disturbing? They're trying to use AI to manipulate what users 'should' see?

Nope. better them than putin or steve bannon, or anyone who works at breitbart

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#48

Post by gizmo686 »

roenxi wrote: post #42
gizmo686 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is literally what Google was founded on. Their core technology behind their initial success was pagerank, an algorithm whose sole purpose is to manipulate what people see. They have stayed dominant through a combination of market forces, and keeping their algorithm near (or, IMO at) the top of the market for generalized search [0], and have leveraged this competency in other markets (video, ads, etc). Beyond jus…

I value political neutrality in the workplace, so I have a lot of in-principle issues with what is being shown here right from the get-go. I didn't wind the video back to find the exact quote, but we now have publicised evidence of senior leadership at Google who stood up and said 'obviously our values are not the same as a big chunk of Americans'. Clearly a lot of them are specific Hillary supporters, a candidate so…

As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I think search should be regulated, and part of that regulation should be some standard for political neutrality [0]. However, there is no neutral algorithm to this problem. Any algorithm favors certain sites over others. There is almost definitely going to be some correlation between the sites that are favored and the content of those sites, political or otherwise. There is simply no getting around that. The discussion we need to be having is how to do this in an acceptable way.

[0] I do not have a good idea of what such a standard would even look like, and would err on the side of being too lax in this regard.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#49

Post by jessaustin »

jacquesm wrote: post #32
jessaustin wrote: post #28

Wow they get lots of comments over at Breitbart. 11k on TFA, 35k on a soundbite from Cher, 22k for some ridiculous complaint about Serena (hmmm, is this some sort of theme?), 3500 on some guy having a heart attack. Is this normal for partisan news sites? They need to figure out some way of monetizing those comments.

> They need to figure out some way of monetizing those comments. The people funding those sites are cleaning up with the votes they've bought in this way. The comments are the monetization.

I suppose that's possible, but it seems rather convoluted. Why wouldn't those hypothetical funders simply bribe both branches of the status quo party like every other rich asshole does?

I might change my mind about all this if any of the actually-different young democrats who have forsworn such financing are actually elected this fall...

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#50

Post by randyrand »

jiojfdsal3 wrote: post #20

"(00:54:33) An employee asks what Google is going to do about “misinformation” and “fake news” shared by “low-information voters.” Pichai responds by stating that “investments in machine learning and AI” are a “big opportunity” to fix the problem." Anyone find this disturbing? They're trying to use AI to manipulate what users 'should' see?

It does bother me that they never acknowledge the more knowledgeable and informed trump voters.

To think they don’t exist is almost as ignorant as the people they’re referring to.

Post reply on HN