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

221–230 of 260 posts

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#221

Post by dragonwriter »

writepub wrote: post #204
roywiggins wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That has nothing in particular to do with whether Google is a monopoly or not, though. Google doesn't graduate into being regulated by the FEC just because it's big.

Tulsi and the article are specific in their mention of Google's 88% market share, because it is material to her being heard in 2019, when most of our communication is online. The FEC has no mandate to regulate monopolies, but when a monopoly with the power to manipulate elections violates electioneering laws, it automatically becomes the most egregious offender, and the focus of any logic based decision making at the…

> Tulsi and the article are specific in their mention of Google's 88% market share

They can be as specific as they want, but it's immaterial as to whether a law was broken. It may be material, if a law was broken, to the argument for particular degree of damages, and it's certainly key to Gabbard’s ploy for free media independent of any legal relevance it has.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#222

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

> 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.

Actually, “eminent domain” refers to the basic model of property ownership: the fact that ultimate title is held by the sovereign and only limited, conditional, subordinate title given to others.

You can't steal what is already yours.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#223

Post by situational87 »

cwkoss wrote: post #17
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…

> 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…

Google is notorious for having different sets of "algorithms" for normal people and for their VIPs, they were one of the first innovators in stratifying the entire online experience into the haves and the have nots.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#224

Post by situational87 »

cwkoss wrote: post #17
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…

> 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…

Google is notorious for having different sets of "algorithms", for normal people and for their VIPs, they were one of the first innovators in stratifying the entire online experience into the haves and the have nots.

Or more accurately, Google is ready and willing to bypass the algorithms at a moment's notice for a VIP. Normal or poor people will never have this option.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#225

Post by SolaceQuantum »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #213
SolaceQuantum wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not my responsibity; I'm not making any claims.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#226

Post by RoyTyrell »

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.

Are you suggesting that the onus is on Google to be proactive and contact every US political campaign before they try to signup for Ads, or any Google account, to verify names, contacts, CC#s ahead of time?

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#227

Post by haste410 »

delfinom wrote: post #191
rory096 wrote: post #12

Since OP has no actual information, some excerpts from the NYT story: >Tulsi Now Inc., the campaign committee for Ms. Gabbard, said Google suspended the campaign’s advertising account for six hours on June 27 and June 28, obstructing its ability to raise money and spread her message to potential voters. >The lawsuit also said the Gabbard campaign believed its emails were being placed in spam folders on Gmail at “a di…

>The lawsuit also said the Gabbard campaign believed its emails were being placed in spam folders on Gmail at “a disproportionately high rate” when compared with emails from other Democratic candidates. Or you know, more people spam foldered your junk mail and triggered the algorithim to learn and mark you more globally as spam. Shit, I spam folder anything that is unsolicited, any politicial party.

It doesn't even have to be from people, she could just have a terrible email full of red flags and/or didn't send from a decent ESP with a good server reputation.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#228

Post by fuzz4lyfe »

beachy wrote: post #188
illvm wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Actually there are 791 presidential candidates according to https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020#Declar... . Yes, most of them are probably not "real candidates", but Google would be in even hotter water if they tried to predetermine who was and who wasn't a real candidate.

Google spent 3.5 million lobbying so far this year and 21 million last year. They know exactly who is a "real candidate"[0]

[0]https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D00006782...

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#229

Post by Excel_Wizard »

In all likelihood, Gabbard and her campaign managers are perfectly aware that:

1. Google's automatic account suspension systems were doing exactly what they would do for any other account.

2. There was no intentional discrimination/meddling.

A sudden spike of search traffic corresponding with a sudden influx of advertising spending is likely to trigger red flags for the system. 6 hours of downtime for these google ads did damage her campaign, but Gabbard, or anybody, is not entitled to 100% uptime for a service provided by a corporation, except to the degree that it violates a contract/ TOS.

“Google’s discriminatory actions against my campaign are reflective of how dangerous their complete dominance over internet search is, and how the increasing dominance of big tech companies over our public discourse threatens our core American values,” Gabbard said in a statement. “This is a threat to free speech, fair elections and to our democracy, and I intend to fight back on behalf of all Americans.”

Her statement quoted above make me like her less, and I don't feel like I'm a particularly pro-google guy.

Post reply on HN