41–50 of 260 posts
NYT article that has more information: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/technology/tulsi-gabbard-... The account was inactive from 9:30pm on June 27th - 3:30am on June 28th. This doesn't seem like an act of malice from Google, but rather a verification check. Some excerpts: > Tulsi Now Inc., the campaign committee for Ms. Gabbard, said Google suspended the campaign’s advertising account for six hours on June 27 and…
Both sides, Democrat and Republican, are now anti big tech. Love it or Hate it, when you piss off the most powerful governing body on the planet you're in for a bad time. My question is more timeframe: Google obviously won't be broken up tomorrow, but probably earlier than a decade from now. I guess the timeframe depends on who wins the next presidential election?
NYT article that has more information: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/technology/tulsi-gabbard-... The account was inactive from 9:30pm on June 27th - 3:30am on June 28th. This doesn't seem like an act of malice from Google, but rather a verification check. Some excerpts: > Tulsi Now Inc., the campaign committee for Ms. Gabbard, said Google suspended the campaign’s advertising account for six hours on June 27 and…
Now now, we can't let facts get in the way of the victimhood Olympics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>it would effectively be utilizing their corporate resources to disproportionately benefit certain candidates at the expense of others Which is still not illegal. Fox News does it all the time.
Would it be legal for Fox News to price political ads based on whether they agree with the bias?
It might be more appropriate to link to a indepdent article about this rather than Gabbard's site. Here is one from The Verge [1]. It sounds like Google's fraud/spam algorithms automatically triggered the suspension (maybe due to a large increase in spend meant to build on Gabbard's post debate momentum). The account was unlocked after human intervention. Gabbard insinuates the initial suspension was politically moti…
>Gabbard insinuates the initial suspension was politically motivated, which seems hard to believe. I'm not saying that she is right but it's not hard to believe at all.
Tangentially related question: How much money will be spent by all these losing campaigns?
The microphone cutting has been going on since long before the debate, kiddo. Welcome to the private-government deplatforming dystopia.
It's nice to know big business keeps on telling the voters who to elect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Gabbard insinuates the initial suspension was politically motivated The subtext I'm reading is that the "major" political accounts probably have specific flags set by Google internally to prevent automated shut-offs like this. If Google is not applying these whitelist flags to all candidates in a fair and systematic fashion, it would effectively be utilizing their corporate resources to disproportionately benefit c…
It's totally reasonable for Google to draw the line somewhere in an exceptionally crowded presidential race. Imagine if anybody could get around Google's fraud controls by just declaring yourself a presidential candidate.
She is a congresswoman, and you are politically clueless.
Good on her for suing Google, even if the fault is on terrible auto suspension. Something needs to be done to improve their god awful heuristics.
This brings up the inherent absurdity of wanting tech infrastructure providers to sensor their platforms. When the mob decides that they don't like a thing then it's "why were they allowed a platform". Whereas when the mob wants access to a thing and then it's restricted it's "why were they allowed to capriciously control my access" It's an inherently unwinnable game. Tech companies who are essentially an information…