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

Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 260 posts

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#151

Post by Laukhi64 »

jessaustin wrote: post #135
Laukhi64 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really disagree with anything else you say, but... >When has a war with USA ever saved lives? I don't know. I think there was a war of note which might have been around the 1940s? It's fine to say that the costs of an interventionist foreign policy don't outweigh the benefits; I don't necessarily disagree with that. But it's absolutely inaccurate to say that the benefits don't exist. USA at the very least con…

OK sure that might be an exception, not least because the Nazis were, like... Nazis . [EDIT: The "might" is intentional. If USA had stayed home, the war might have ended in 1943. Isn't it possible that fewer people would have died in a much shorter war?] If you don't like Nazis, however, I don't think you can support Wilson's lying our way into WWI. That certainly cost lives, and by forcing Germany into an untenable…

It's true that a Nazi victory was practically impossible. But I have no idea how you can say that the US prolonged the war. Supplying the enemies of the Reich and fighting against them is not the sort of thing that causes wars to extend longer, and certainly it drew resources away from Barbarossa.

>by forcing Germany into an untenable position

No more untenable than what Germany had forced upon France following the Franco-Prussian wars, or what they forced upon Russia in Brest-Litvosk. It seems that neither of those countries engaged upon a ruthless war of extermination, though.

I also don't think that having your country split up is less harsh than reparations basically similar to what your country forced on others. Wilson's mistake was insisting on Peace with Victory, which resulted only in delaying victory by a few decades.

>I don't think you can support Wilson's lying our way into WWI.

Wilson undoubtedly bungled the aftermath to WWI, but I don't think that any of the events preceding it were faked? The Zimmerman Telegram was confirmed as being real by the man himself, correct? Unless you're talking about him breaking his promise of peace, in which case, I agree.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#152

Post by darkpuma »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #149
darkpuma wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans do call it a World War, don't they? I think you're being a bit too cynical.

Perhaps pedantic . But the comment I was replying to specifically framed WW2 as "a war with the US" and I've had foreign friends, such as in Canada, who have commented on America's tendency to talk like we singlehandedly won that war.

I don't think "war with the US" was meant to imply "A war in which America was on it's own and did everything"; that's a cynical read of it. A less cynical read would be that "war with the US" means "war in which the US was a participant."

Germany did declare war with the US, hence there was in fact a war with the US. Of course, Germany was also at war with lots of other people. All Americans are taught that in schools. It's called a World War for a reason and people do understand that, even when they're going out of their way to mention it. If Americans don't mention Canadian participation much it's simply because they don't talk about Canada much in the first place. It's not because they're unaware that Canada participated in the war. Canada is a commonwealth country, of course they participated in the war. Everybody here knows that.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#153

Post by perl4ever »

word-reader wrote: post #107
moultano wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work at Google on ranking algorithms for Search. I'm aware of everything that controls how web pages are ranked. If I ever encountered a system that was designed to alter the results for political reasons, I would resign.

Just as an example: a controversial political figure's popular website is buried on page 5 of Google results (underneath a mountain of criticism) when you search for his name, despite being in the top 3 results of page 1 for all of Qwant, DDG, Bing, Mojeek, and Yandex. Obviously, the website is being downranked for being full of "conspiracy theories and fake news" (I wouldn't completely disagree that it is). But who…

What if it's downranked because most of the people who search for him aren't looking for his site, but for commentary about him?

I mean, maybe this sounds implausible to you, but I think you should be conscious of whether you're discarding it as a possibility and why.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#154

Post by perl4ever »

anm89 wrote: post #144
lukifer wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

As it should be. Eminent domain is a policy that's is designed to be abused if there ever was one. I suspect that the only reason eminent domain has such a fancy name is to take focus of the fact that the other word for it is theft.

You know, when someone wants to buy a public company, Joe Schmoe doesn't get to say "I'm only selling my 10 shares for $1 million apiece!"

Is this an outrageous affront to property rights, or is it something you just take for granted because you don't see the connection to the government?

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#155

Post by perl4ever »

ziddoap wrote: post #15
not_a_cop75 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let companies rule the world! Let them put whatever they want in our meats! Remember the term "mystery meat"? That was from poor quality controls in corporate with zero government oversight.

I'm not saying that this is the way it should be. I'm just pointing out that we fought for capitalism in it's truest form, and then got angry when companies exploited it. (And still praise it when it suits us)

You're describing the caricature of capitalism by people who oppose it and saying "we fought for it". That's silly, regardless of whether your description is accurate or not.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#156

Post by DoreenMichele »

darkpuma wrote: post #152
DoreenMichele wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps pedantic . But the comment I was replying to specifically framed WW2 as "a war with the US" and I've had foreign friends, such as in Canada, who have commented on America's tendency to talk like we singlehandedly won that war.

I don't think "war with the US" was meant to imply "A war in which America was on it's own and did everything" ; that's a cynical read of it. A less cynical read would be that "war with the US" means "war in which the US was a participant." Germany did declare war with the US , hence there was in fact a war with the US. Of course, Germany was also at war with lots of other people. All Americans are taught that in sch…

I don't understand your use of the word cynical here. It sounds like you might mean "bad faith or uncharitable reading."

Ironically, that framing of my remarks strikes me as uncharitable. I did start by asserting from the get go that I was picking nits.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#157

Post by [deleted] »

jinushaun wrote: post #134
cwkoss wrote: post #17

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 like keeping track of pirated content. You're assuming Google is on top of everything happening in the world. They're not and simply can't be. I would not be surprised if this was a manually curated whitelist that a human has to add to a table.

[deleted]

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#158

Post by geargrinder »

moultano wrote: post #90
bufferoverflow wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> insinuates the initial suspension was politically motivated, which seems hard to believe How is that hard to believe? We know for a fact Google does political censorship. https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/24/insider-blows-whis... https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/25/breaking-new-googl... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ricI5t66cj8 (note these are fresh links just from the last 2 days)

I work at Google on ranking algorithms for Search. I'm aware of everything that controls how web pages are ranked. If I ever encountered a system that was designed to alter the results for political reasons, I would resign.

Does your claim include the keyword "abortion"? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/13/abortions-near...

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#159

Post by Mike_Ehling »

belltaco wrote: post #21
cwkoss wrote: post #17

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 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.

BUT Tulsi has bought and paid for the Google Ads that were disabled during a critical SIX hours when interest in her was high and her top placed ad would have driven traffic to her donation page. She BOUGHT that ad time just as much as an advertiser buys Superbowl ad time. This was an outright breach of contract.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#160

Post by dralley »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #34
slg wrote: post #9

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…

> insinuates the initial suspension was politically motivated, which seems hard to believe How is that hard to believe? We know for a fact Google does political censorship. https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/24/insider-blows-whis... https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/25/breaking-new-googl... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ricI5t66cj8 (note these are fresh links just from the last 2 days)

Project Veritas has utterly shattered their credibility so many time, that they should not be used as a source even if what they say is true.

They edit videos, not even deceptively, but in a way that makes the people featured in the video make them look like they're saying something completely different. Not just clipping but also reordering the clips

Post reply on HN