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

241–250 of 260 posts

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#241

Post by writepub »

Excel_Wizard wrote: post #229

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 ad…

The allegation here is of intentionally suppressing her campaign. Google acts behind a veil of secrecy, and without access to internals, the best you have to work with is their word. And I DO NOT trust the robo-responses from giant corporations

She has won numerous elections over a decade, and her campaign is likely adept at managing Google ad accounts. If they suspect malice, they cannot be discounted for lack of experience or understanding of what they are dealing with. It's best to wait till this case enters the discovery phase before concluding anything.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#242

Post by FreedomToCreate »

Excel_Wizard wrote: post #229

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 ad…

To plays devils advocate, google may be a private company, but it has a sheer dominance in a how information is disseminated, giving it a influential role in how people formulate there beliefs and opinions. And even though currently, as a private company, Google can argue that they don't have to allow anyone on there system, because of how much influence they have on the flow of information, not having proper or fair access to there platform is equivalent to a community not being giving access to vital utilities or education. There is no equivalent or remotely second best option to google.

The event regardless is an issue in both Googles system and for Gabbards campaign.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#243

Post by einpoklum »

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…

"Automatically triggered"? Yes, well...

   flag_the_adword = some_conditions() || (esimate_political_reliability()

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#244

Post by einpoklum »

"We didn't really do anything to you, it was this automatic machine that we programmed. We have no way of controlling what it does, and thus are not responsible for the outcomes of its activities at all."

Google defense brief. Also, probably, a classic Dilbert comic.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#245

Post by einpoklum »

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.

There's no assumption here, Google _is_ on top of censoring various kinds of political content critical of the US political establishment:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/26/technology/google-search-...

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#246

Post by einpoklum »

compuguy wrote: post #232
fuzz4lyfe wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's what I do in general with articles. Russia Today has a pretty consistent and documented history of being a propaganda outlet for the Russian government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Propaganda_cla...

The Wikipedia article says that _critics_ of RT regard it as a propaganda outlet... which is not quite what you said.

TBH though, RT has a bunch of Russian-angle propaganda in some of its shows. Those are mostly the shows hosted by actual Russians, or with Russian/living-in-Russia panelists; and their newscasts. Other shows, particularly those by non-Russian journalists/creators, aren't like that. Of course, it is a Russian state entity which selects which people and shows get to be on the network. It seems to me like the main influence on the non-Russian shows is that they refrain from covering or referring to internal Russian affairs and politics.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#247

Post by einpoklum »

therein wrote: post #38
belltaco wrote: post #21

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.

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…

That's debatable. Once certain kind of social interaction happens exclusively on a single platform or one of a few platforms, it can be argued (IANAL) that these platforms, even if privately owned, now have a public function - and thus have a "dual nature", partly public and private (that's an actual formal term in some non-US legal systems).

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#248

Post by einpoklum »

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.

You sir, are a liar:

https://www.blog.google/products/search/our-latest-quality-i...

That is by Google's VP of Search, Ben Gomes. That's your boss, supposedly. So, Human evaluators flag content in general ("low quality"); and particularly, remove or down-rate content which Google determines to be "fake news", as Gomes puts it.

and some of the results:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/09/19/goog-s19.html

Consortium News, Global Research, Counterpunch, Truthdig, Russia Today, Truepublica, World Socialist Website and others - censored. Not entirely, but to a great extent.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#249

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account

#250

Post by einpoklum »

anm89 wrote: 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…

It's not about "people". Google censors because of pressures from the US state (and other states they operate in) and commercial interests, particularly advertisers I would assume.
Post reply on HN