Live data from Hacker News

Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

nytimes.com

121–130 of 260 posts

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#121
post #22

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…

There's been talk of antitrust/etc recently regarding big tech companies, from Warren and others. For better or worse, it occurred to me recently that we have no concept of eminent domain [0] when it comes to technology, data, or intellectual property.

If it's in the public interest to build a bridge, lay train tracks, etc., your private property can be purchased against your wishes at a fair market price. When it comes to things like open APIs, protocols, interoperability, data portability, even patents, I wonder if it might every make sense to leverage this legal framework to build true network commons out of privatized silos (while compensating shareholders), as opposed to the old "break up AT&T into multiple companies" model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#122
Perhaps it’s a simple case of “Gmail users label her messages as spam more than other Dem candidates.” and Google is using that to train their filter.

Social norms have never been decided in an entirely open and objective way. We’re free to speak. Not be heard. Tulsi isn’t owed an audience of Gmail users.

Look at all these “but the free market!” type pols who got us to give everything up to corps getting bit. Suddenly investigations and regulations be coming!

Not a peep when, you know, they started bulk collecting the general public’s phone calls and emails.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#123
Algorithm defense is a new Twinkie defense.

On the first debate where so many candidates are buying google ads, for Google to have not planned for a spike in advertising and blaming it on the algorithm is just inexcusable.

Either Google is very incompetent and the person in charge needs to be fired, or there is something else going on. Either incompetence or intentional their action did impact Tulsi Gabbard's post-debate moment and her fundraising ability and google is liable in election interference.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you care so much about what the media has told you Assad has done? Assad is not and never has been a threat to you or anyone you know. It is a good thing that we didn't get into a protracted war with Syria. It's easy to see the results of our wars in Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The Syrian people are fortunate that they didn't suffer the same fates as those nations. Gabbard's diplomatic mission is at least pa…

Assad is not and never has been a threat to you or anyone you know 1. That's an interesting assumption you make. 2. Why would I have to know someone personally to empathize with them? 3. U.S. foreign policy, as conducted by our military, has pretty consistently been a disaster for decades. I agree wholeheartedly with you on that point.

1. It would be easy to refute, wouldn't it? If you or anyone in your family have ever been ISIS members, by all means correct me.

2. I'm glad to know that you have empathy for war victims. When has a war with USA ever saved lives? Didn't the ramp-up to the planned Syria war look just like previous ramp-ups to our wars in other Muslim nations? Those media projects were later found to be completely false (as has the Syria gas narrative, at this point), so why would we have believed this project?

3. USA wars are always conducted in USA media first. That is the time to fight, and that's what Gabbard (and many others) did. We seem to have broken their spirits, too. After really trying on Syria and only failing because they made so much money hyping up Trump, their recent efforts on Venezuela were fairly half-hearted. The world might be getting safer...

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#126
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, Google probably has no legal obligation to be an equal-opportunity ad platform however they really should be more careful when it comes to internal procedures like this. For instance whitelisting all potential candidates would have been a better idea. Besides, if they are so eager to make algorithms decide things like this only to be fixed later by a human, they should at least set better thresholds or include…

However, Google does have legal liability for damages. If you hire me to do a task, and my ineptitude costs you a substantial sum, you can sue accordingly. Google users have reasonable expectations for monetization, and the shockingly arbitrary & rapid demonetization without notice nor recourse, usually during a narrow window of opportunity, certainly is actionable. Would be easy for Google to simply withhold payment…

Ineptitude doesn't create any legal liability. And loss of potential revenue isn't a basis for establishing damages.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under what law?

In the US, it would be Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Title 47 United States Code).

Aha:

https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/statutes-and-rules-candidat...

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Project Veritas has a long record of collecting large sums in judgement against those who make such libelous accusations without proof.

I think you have that backwards. Okeefe has paid 100k in damages to an ACORN employee, for libel.

One case, poorly phrased, is hardly a "long list".

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#129

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.

Because our voting systems are nearly all First Past The Post, voters are forced to vote strategically, based on who they think others are also likely to vote for (and their recursive assessment of those voters' assessments). In game theory, this is known as a Schelling focus[0], and it makes it difficult to reveal voters' true preferences for leaders and policies (as opposed to other systems like Ranked-Choice[1] or Approval).

This is often theorized as one reason for the effectiveness of broadcast advertising: in addition to individual influence, one becomes socially influenced by the awareness that millions of others have seen the same advertisement at the same time, and thus can be relied on to use brands and products as signals for identity or group membership.

So in this sense, even as the power of broadcast is waning in favor of social networking, broadcast media (such as televised debates) still have tremendous power in powerfully nudging the recursive algorithm: even if I know for a fact that a TV interviewer is cynically kneecapping Gabbard/Yang/whoever, the mere fact that I know so many others are seeing it will influence my assessment of their odds, and discourage me from "throwing my vote away", knowing other viewers are likely reaching the same conclusion.

Incidentally, as opposed as the MSM was to Trump during primaries, I think he still leveraged this phenomenon in his favor; partially by being so shocking that he gained regular airtime, thus seeming more prominent and significant, but most especially through his IRL rallies, which acted as a powerful signal of popularity, inline with the common knowledge model described in "Rational Ritual"[2].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory)

[1] https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV)

[2] https://press.princeton.edu/titles/9998.html

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#130
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However, Google does have legal liability for damages. If you hire me to do a task, and my ineptitude costs you a substantial sum, you can sue accordingly. Google users have reasonable expectations for monetization, and the shockingly arbitrary & rapid demonetization without notice nor recourse, usually during a narrow window of opportunity, certainly is actionable. Would be easy for Google to simply withhold payment…

Ineptitude doesn't create any legal liability. And loss of potential revenue isn't a basis for establishing damages.

Methinks Google would have a hard time establishing, or even admitting to, ineptitude as a legal defense.
Post reply on HN