🐱 Trump administration 'taking a look' at regulating Google

http://thehill.com/policy/technolog...nistration-taking-a-look-at-regulating-google


White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow on Tuesday said that the administration is “taking a look” at potentially regulating Google, following President Trump’s tweets criticizing the search giant.

Trump tweeted on Tuesday morning that Google search results for “Trump News” showed results for “only the viewing/reporting of Fake New Media," he wrote, referencing prominent news outlet CNN.



“Republican/Conservative & Fair Media is shut out,” Trump’s tweet read.
Kudlow's comments were in response to being pressed by reporters on if, in light of the president's comments, the administration is considering imposing regulations on Google.

In his tweets, Trump went on to accuse Google and other tech companies of being biased against conservatives, an increasingly common attack from Republicans.

“Google & others are suppressing voices of Conservatives and hiding information and news that is good. They are controlling what we can & cannot see. This is a very serious situation-will be addressed!” Trump tweeted.

Google shot back at the president's claims, refuting charges that it is biased against conservatives or any other political groups.

"When users type queries into the Google Search bar, our goal is to make sure they receive the most relevant answers in a matter of seconds," a Google spokesperson said in a statement.

"Search is not used to set a political agenda and we don't bias our results toward any political ideology," the statement continues. "Every year, we issue hundreds of improvements to our algorithms to ensure they surface high-quality content in response to users' queries. We continually work to improve Google Search and we never rank search results to manipulate political sentiment."

Trump joins high-profile Republicans like House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) in accusing technology companies of treating conservatives on their platforms unfairly.

With support from McCarthy, the House Energy and Commerce Committee is set to hold a hearing on the matter on Sept. 5, which Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey is set to testify.

Dorsey will also testify during the Senate Intelligence Committee’s hearing that day on how foreign governments have run misinformation campaigns on American tech platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Google Plus.

 

[RP 520]

In the grand scheme of things what Trump wants is nothing new. IMO I don't really agree with it but what he seems to want has existed in the U.S. in the past as the "Fairness Doctrine". An FCC rule that existed from the 1940's up until the late 1980's that stated that controversial news had to be covered by outlets in a fair and balanced manner. From what I've heard about it, most outlets found loopholes to subvert it and it was rarely ever enforced.

 

[wellthathappened]

And I am opposed to ceding power from my elected representatives to unelected corporate boards. It's infuriating enough to see the elected representatives dancing to the tune of these companies in exchange for money. To see these companies deciding to bypass the elected government entirely and go right to the people is beyond infuriating.

We really have vastly different views on this I guess. I view it as an appropriate response to public sector unions.

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

In the grand scheme of things what Trump wants is nothing new. IMO I don't really agree with it but what he seems to want has existed in the U.S. in the past as the "Fairness Doctrine". An FCC rule that existed from the 1940's up until the late 1980's that stated that controversial news had to be covered by outlets in a fair and balanced manner. From what I've heard about it, most outlets found loopholes to subvert it and it was rarely ever enforced.

We can only hope it's that toothless.

 

[TowinKarz]

Private companies used to quietly value their impartiality, or at least embrace a mercenary approach "as long as you pay for the vine, who cares what you say?" Now they openly value wokeness.... and paying for access is no longer enough if you aren't woke too....

Hopefully, it's a misguided chasing of a trendy fad that will self-correct, and not the eventual immolation of the greatest public forum ever seen, done by a tiny group of self-serving moralists, in the name of saving it from being subverted by "wrong" ideas.

It would be deliciously ironic if free speech got white-knighted to death by those who can't see they don't actually support it, even though they think they do in their own minds, becuse they can't draw a qualifying distinction between "free" speech and "right" speech.

 

[Tranhuviya]

Companies have always seen themselves as political actors. Otherwise Rhodesia wouldn't have existed.

I am philosophically opposed to enacting laws that restrict private companies in order to fill a cultural or political desire. Sorry.

So you're opposed to child labor laws?

 

[wellthathappened]

Twitter is not a fucking public utility. Nobody championing this shit in this thread is some freedom fighting dissident in Iran relying on Twitter.

 

[wellthathappened]

So you're opposed to child labor laws?

Sometimes, depending on context. I think rural kids should be able to learn farming if that is the established available career. But I also hate Ayn Rand and am not going to enter into a debate about selling kids because that is fucked up and wrong.

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

Private companies used to quietly value their impartiality, or at least embrace a mercenary approach "as long as you pay for the vine, who cares what you say?" Now they openly value wokeness.... and paying for access is no longer enough if you aren't woke too....

Hopefully, it's a misguided chasing of a trendy fad that will self-correct, and not the eventual immolation of the greatest public forum ever seen, done by a tiny group of self-serving moralists, in the name of saving it from being subverted by "wrong" ideas.

It would be deliciously ironic if free speech got white-knighted to death by those who can't see they don't actually support it, even though they think they do in their own minds, becuse they can't draw a qualifying distinction between "free" speech and "right" speech.

Get woke go broke seems to be holding steady as a trend so far.

 

[Chan the Wizard]

I’m beginning to think that Trump may not be that smart.

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

Twitter is not a fucking public utility. Nobody championing this shit in this thread is some freedom fighting dissident in Iran relying on Twitter.

I don't think anyone here even uses twitter except to laugh at lolcows on it. Kind of reminiscent of SJWs having strong feelings on how a product they don't even use should be allowed to be used by others.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Does anyone have a link to that youtube video that was made by someone around 2010 that the hatred of the mainstream media would lead to someone who hated it becoming elected or something like that?

No, but I can do you one better. In 2016, Christopher Nuttel (A British sci-fi writer) wrote this in his afterword to the trilogy "the fall of the galactic empire".

This may seem paradoxical. Unlike the aristocracy of every state from Rome to the British Empire, the political class has no legal existence. A democratic state is not supposed to have an aristocracy with an inherent right to rule. However, the political class controls a great deal of the political establishment, giving it the ability to promote its selected candidates over candidates who may be favored by the rank and file. The existence of political dynasties like the Kennedys, Bushes and Clintons — and their ability to push their children forward as their successors has been limiting the influx of new blood into the political arena. Indeed, given how savagely newcomers have been attacked by the establishment, it is easy to see how so many newcomers choose not to take part in politics.
Unsurprisingly, the results have been disastrous. A number of people who have no experience of anything outside politics — and a very specific kind of politics at that — are incapable of doing their job in anything like a reasonable fashion. Senators who don’t understand the lives of the people they purport to rule are unlikely to pass legislation that actually helps the general population. Congressmen who have no contact with their constituents are hardly likely to understand their concerns. And Presidents who have never served in the military are unlikely to grasp what it can and cannot do. The real world rarely operates on political timescales. And when the political class uses its power to escape the consequences of its actions, or to evade laws that apply to everyone else, it merely sows the seeds of destruction. The political class, in a very real sense, is merely the tip of an iceberg that threatens to sink the ship of state. It is buttressed by a media establishment (the mainstream media) that supports its candidates uncritically, while hammering any outsider with charges that are simply inaccurate and yet maddeningly difficult to refute. A favored candidate can expect to have any problems in his life smoothed over — Obama’s sheer lack of experience, for example, or questions raised about his academic standing or even nationality — while anyone who raises these issues gets attacked sharply. But a candidate who is unfavored can expect to be brutally attacked for even the tiniest of gaffes.

This too has been disastrous. President George W. Bush embarked upon a long and dangerous endeavour, but the media expected results at once. Small failures were treated as immense disasters, forcing Bush to play keep-up instead of merely learning from the problems and pushing forward. Much of Bush’s early reputation was shaped by the media choosing to present a very unfavorable picture to the world. (A problem made worse by the media rarely understanding the issues.) Obama, on the other hand, was treated so favorably by the media that he developed a truly staggering level of narcissism. His policies have been disastrous because he appears to believe that his involvement is enough to make them successful. As I write these words (February 2016), the race for the American presidential nomination is in full swing. It has already taken on the veneer of a revolt against the elites, with the Republican base eying Trump and the Democratic base considering Bernie Sanders while the elite tries to promote Jeb Bush and Hilary Clinton. Neither of the latter two are really appealing to voters, in times of trouble. They have been part of the political class for decades. (So has Bernie Sanders, to a quite considerable extent.) Indeed, Donald Trump’s coarseness — his willingness to say what he thinks and his complete refusal to apologize for anything — has made him astonishingly popular, because he appears to be standing up to the elites.

This does not mean that Trump would make a good President. But the skills needed to be a good President are not the skills needed to get elected. The Roman Empire died, at least in part, because it rotted away from within. Our society is facing the same problems. The rise of the bureaucratic nanny-state is sapping our virility; the rise of unchallenged and unchallengeable political consensuses is stripping common sense from our world; the slow decline of education is turning our young men and women into morons; the cuts in our military make it harder for us to fight; political correctness is making it impossible to stand up and say, bluntly, that the emperor has no clothes.

 

[TowinKarz]

Get woke go broke seems to be holding steady as a trend so far.

It's funny how for all the hand-wringing about how awful it is to live under soulless corporations that care only for money, as we've seen, are they any better when they develop an alleged moral compass? Seems to me that they somehow get worse when they decide to police their own customer base for the taint of the social heretic.....

Robber Barons will at least stop pestering you when your money is spent, the ideologue will not rest until they own your every thought and feeling.

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

It's funny how for all the hand-wringing about how awful it is to live under soulless corporations that care only for money, as we've seen, are they any better when they develop an alleged moral compass? Seems to me that they somehow get worse when they decide to police their own customer base for the taint of the social heretic.....

Robber Barons will at least stop pestering you when your money is spent, the ideologue will not rest until they own you very thoughts and feelings.

Someone post that quote about benevolent tyranny being the worst tyranny of all etc etc

 

[Marvin]

But as the Damore lawsuit shows, the market stalls in our modern agora are not disinterested third parties. They are activists. They view their ownership of the Agora not as a public duty for all, but as a political duty for their own interests. Which are virulently left wing. To the point where their own management proudly claims membership in ANTIFA, and views their power as a means of controlling the Demos (The people) rather then providing an open forum.

The US government therefore has no choice but to seize control. It cannot allow unelected third parties to dominate the political discourse. The government of the United States rules this land.

Not google.

I don't believe google is inappropriately manipulating their search results.

Let me explain why: so, like I said, youtube is curated. It's probably bolstered by a lot of algorithms, but at the end of the day, there is a custom, hand-tuned aspect to it. And it's significant.

Google is different. It's substantially algorithm driven. Because of that, it would be a huge news story if they started fucking with the algorithm. Like if a google engineer saw some hard-coded constant somewhere that's suspicious, I don't think they could keep it secret. I think that's shocking enough that a programmer would leak it eventually. I think it's just a numbers game.

But every time I read a story along these lines, it's always a nothingburger (like the facebook and cambridge analytica stuff).

Edit: It gets more complicated than just that, of course. There's also questions about if google prioritizes "reliable" news sources over other news sources. I could go on and on picking the issues apart.

The US government has ALWAYS controlled the Agora, in as much as it has set the ground rules for the newspapers, and has heavily regulated television and radio. The internet has been the wild wild west. And that has been fine. Chaotic media is better then controlled media, and for the last 20 years this has been policy.

The US government has always been very reluctant to set ground rules for newspapers. They only got involved in cases of anti-trust issues and even then (unless there's some details I'm missing), I feel that's inappropriate because you can always print more shit off.

Like I think if Alex Jones started printing a newsletter and it got super popular, I think it'd be unfair to penalize him and I think it'd be a bad idea to intervene and start poking around what he's allowed to do.

We should put effort into enabling competition.

And yeah, radio spectrum is limited, totally fine with regulating that.

In the grand scheme of things what Trump wants is nothing new. IMO I don't really agree with it but what he seems to want has existed in the U.S. in the past as the "Fairness Doctrine". An FCC rule that existed from the 1940's up until the late 1980's that stated that controversial news had to be covered by outlets in a fair and balanced manner. From what I've heard about it, most outlets found loopholes to subvert it and it was rarely ever enforced.

The fairness doctrine was tied to the fact that if you're broadcasting on one radio frequency at a given power level, in a given area, no one else can do that. Because of interference, the radio spectrum is fundamentally limited.

That's why regulating the internet (at least regulating it on a content level) is such a bad idea. The internet is not limited in the same way that the radio spectrum is.

 

[wellthathappened]

It's funny how for all the hand-wringing about how awful it is to live under soulless corporations that care only for money, as we've seen, are they any better when they develop an alleged moral compass? Seems to me that they somehow get worse when they decide to police their own customer base for the taint of the social heretic.....

Robber Barons will at least stop pestering you when your money is spent, the ideologue will not rest until they own you very thoughts and feelings.

Capitalism doesn't have a moral compass. It rewards winners and punishes losers. The market decides how much assholery society will take.

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

Capitalism doesn't have a moral compass. It rewards winners and punishes losers. The market decides how much assholery society will take.

True but a few corporations are not the whole of the market, as I think twitter and google and etc. will eventually find out to their detriment.

 

[wellthathappened]

True but a few corporations are not the whole of the market, as I think twitter and google and etc. will eventually find out to their detriment.

Alternatives will rise through demand as they always do.

Nobody needed laws to make people use Facebook over MySpace.

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

Alternatives will rise through demand as they always do.

Nobody needed laws to make people use Facebook over MySpace.

But imagine if MySpace somehow became a utility and got their friends in government to declare Facebook to be some sort of Russian troll farm that needed to be sunk for the good of the state.

 

[wellthathappened]

But imagine if MySpace somehow became a utility and got their friends in government to declare Facebook to be some sort of Russian troll farm that needed to be sunk for the good of the state.

Tax dollars already pay for males to chop their dicks off and grow tits so I guess par for the course.

 

[Commander Keen]

In the grand scheme of things what Trump wants is nothing new. IMO I don't really agree with it but what he seems to want has existed in the U.S. in the past as the "Fairness Doctrine". An FCC rule that existed from the 1940's up until the late 1980's that stated that controversial news had to be covered by outlets in a fair and balanced manner. From what I've heard about it, most outlets found loopholes to subvert it and it was rarely ever enforced.

No one gave a good god damn about the “fairness doctine” until Rush Limbaugh got popular during the Clinton years.