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

211–220 of 260 posts

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#211

Post by brighter2morrow »

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.

>Fox News does it all the time.

FB and G are natural monopolies, while Fox News is a branded commodities dealer.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#212

Post by repolfx »

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.

That's a very strong claim you're making there. Do you not consider mixins from News and YouTube to be "web pages"?

I've also worked at Google. Things that are clearly the case:

1. There are blacklists of certain political query completions on web search, like "hillary clinton emails".

2. There is a controversial query blacklist on YouTube with political content. Go look at the file in google3 if you really think the screenshots are faked:

https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/26/blacklisted-leaked...

3. Google News is quite clearly blacklisting Breitbart from ranking: it's indexed but in many years of using Google News I've never once seen it be selected. The Guardian, on the other hand, routinely makes it into nearly every selected story.

The writing is clearly on the wall for you. Whether organic web index results are reranked politically or not, and for what it's worth I believe you for that specific subset of the system, other teams in the company that didn't inherit the same culture are doing politically motivated things with the full knowledge and acceptance of the executives. It's only a matter of time before web search falls to that new culture too.

And when it happens you probably won't even realise it. Some team you've never heard of will quietly adjust a machine learning model in subtle ways you'll never detect, to "debias" it in order to yield "better outcomes".

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#213

Post by bufferoverflow »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #88
bufferoverflow wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand you're trying to do character assassination. Thankfully, we have actual videos of google insiders. I also trust my own eyes, I see which political side gets banned en masse by Google, Twitter, FB and other large Silicon Valley companies. Are you going to deny this too?

Can you provide a different citation than a publication known to generate fabricated claims bolstered by fabricated evidence? (I'm serious and taking you in good faith here for the record.)

Can you even name a publication that has not fabricated stuff? I'm not aware of any.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#214

Post by bufferoverflow »

BryantD wrote: post #72
bufferoverflow wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize the rightwingers say the same about CNN, NYT, and other "reputable" sources? They are all dirty, on all sides. Thankfully, we have videos, so we don't have to rely on anybody's reputation.

Nope, reputation is definitely still important. As it turns out, you can edit videos to produce a desired effect/impression -- just saying "it's a video" doesn't really establish objective truth. Since O'Keefe paid $100,000 to settle a lawsuit centered around edited video designed to make ACORN look bad, it's pretty reasonable to treat his videos with skepticism.

As I said, they all have horrible reputation to me - I've seen major lies in all major news sources. They all editorialize to fit their agenda. Left or right wing, all bad.

But since you're the one claiming these particular videos are somehow edited, present your evidence. The burden of proof is on you.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#215

Post by anm89 »

perl4ever wrote: post #154
anm89 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What???This is totally incoherent.

Yes that's exactly how it works. Joe can ask for whatever price he wants and if he doesn't get that price then he has to keep holding the asset.

An individual asking an unfair price for stock they own would not hold up the sale of other shares in the company in most (all?) cases unless they are the primary stake holder

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#216

Post by DanZacn »

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.

[flagged]

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#217

Post by bufferoverflow »

dralley wrote: post #162
bufferoverflow wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The video recording. Are you gonna claim they are fake?

Yes, because he's literally done exactly that many times, and lost lawsuits over it.

Ok, prove that they are fake.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#219

Post by dragonwriter »

illvm wrote: post #174
jinushaun wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No it's not? There is a venerable plethora of pirated content. There are less than 2 dozen presidential candidates. If there is some override table which was manually updated, then the person who updated it, at minimum, did not perform due diligence to ensure that all candidates were listed.

> There are less than 2 dozen presidential candidates.

Not only are there actually 791 Presidential candidates, but there are 26 (27 if you count one who has only formed an exploratory committee)—that is, more than 2 dozen—that Ballotpedia calls “elected officials or notable public figures”.

https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_registered_2020_presidential...

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#220

Post by fuzz4lyfe »

compuguy wrote: post #178
nailer wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep on mind the top post is recommending we read a Vox media site.

Last time I checked, Vox media isn't tied to, nor funded by the Russian government. Russia Today (RT) is.

Is Fox News funded by the Russian Government? If not, does that make them ok? NPR is funded by the US government does that make everything they say untrue?

Seems like it might be better to use critical thinking of work off original sources rather than trusting any media organization to do that for you.

Post reply on HN