[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/news/ - Current News


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 42 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


4chan Virtual YouTuber Contest Final Round - 4chan Pass users can now vote on one of the top 20 entries!




File: 1539135892342.jpg (58 KB, 490x750)
58 KB
58 KB JPG
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/10/09/the-good-censor-leaked-google-briefing-admits-abandonment-of-free-speech-for-safety-and-civility/
>>
>>299194
Post an actual source or get fucked.
>>
How does Breitbart have any readership at all?
>>
>>299200
Breitbart is the primary source of this story, because someone from Google leaked a document directly to Breitbart. Google acknowledges that it is in fact real.
>>
>>299203
Yes but it's Breitbart's flawed and disingenuously partisan interpretation of the leaked Google document that is the issue. That's the problem with 99% of all Breitbart stories.
>>
>>299200
Since you're in denial:
https://www.scribd.com/document/390521673/The-Good-Censor-GOOGLE-LEAK#from_embed
>>
>>299204
>Yes but it's Breitbart's flawed and disingenuously partisan interpretation of the leaked Google document that is the issue.
If you don't like their take on it you should cite the document, which they provide, and explain why their take is wrong.
>>
But that's literally every corporation.
>>
>>299205
This hardly even seems like a leaked document to be honest, maybe an intentional leak. Its just stating the obvious really. Is it really any surprise to anyone that we are seeing more and more censorship coming from private companies in the place of governments? Tech companies shifting toward moderating content and creating safe spaces is another thing we have all seen coming. I guess I'm just failing to see the revelation here.
>>
>>299221
They're not supposed to if they don't want people rethinking how we handle information gatekeepers. Previously it was only a potential threat that kept big tech companies in enough peoples' good graces. Now we'll probably have to regulate them via the government.
>>
>>299200
Try Google it's been quite widely reported on
>>
>>299200
The entire presentation is at that link. Don't be so simple, NPC.
>>
Wow, when Trump tweeted about Google censoring conservative viewpoints he was right
>>
>>299204

It's better than Washingtonpost politico, and shareblue, but you idiots keep spamming those as sources
>>
>>299228

> government tries to regulate

Lay off big business! Muh free market!

> big business does a thing

Wtf why isn't the government stepping in?
>>
>>299228
>Now we'll probably have to regulate
So much for the free market.
>>
>>299204
But it's still allowed because the mods have a right wing bias.
>>
>>299255
No it really isn't. Thanks for playing though.
>>
>>299238
>It's been widely marketed as outragebait by Breitbart, Fox News, and The Daily Caller
*ftfy
>>
>>299253
haha weird right
>>
heres a direct link to the memo if anyones interested
https://goo.
gl/WMUb3S
>>
>>299286
And how do we know this memo wasn't created by some right wing google employee to make the company look bad and done in such a way that google wouldn't blackball them since in the corporate world, it's better to look guilty than incompetent?
>>
>>299288
And how do we know your not Sundar Pichai, or one of his lackeys playing damage control?
>>
>>299289
So you just confirmed this is a right wing hit job on Google to spread conspiracies theories.
Nice try Brietbart
>>
>>299288
>And how do we know this memo wasn't created by some right wing google employee to make the company look bad
Because if that were the case, Google would have said so.
>>
>>299302
Then the right wing would claim it's a grand conspiracy to silence a whistle blower who was outing googles bias, which would only make the situation worse for google.
It's a lose/lose for them
>>
>>299307
So, Google is supporting Breitbart's 100% made-up fake news invented for the sole purpose of slandering them?

That's an interesting theory, but not an intelligent one.
>>
>>299221
It's news because it has direct regulatory and fiscal consequences for those companies, at least in the US. I expect shareholders to be extremely pissed.
>>
>>299307
To its credit, Google has always acknowledged its employees were biased. It also has always claimed this had no consequence on its operations.
>>
>muh corporate freeze peach
Why do republicans always do this?
>>
>>299194
>Breitbart
Not news faggot
>>
>>299322
Free speech is a liberal value. At least it used to be. Free speech=free thinking. Only authoritarians like censorship.
>>
>>299357
There used to be major planks of the GOP platform all about not interfering with the free market, getting rid of the FCC fairness doctrine, and letting money = free speech for corporations.
>>
>>299309
Because the alternative is having the right wing come after them again including legislatively under the false flag attack that they're targeting conservatives. Much better than this grand conspiracy to suppress free speech that Breitbart always claims is happening.
>>
>>299359
>free speech for corporations
You know big tech is a monopoly and absolutely dwarfs any other corporate entity.
>>
>>299271
>>299272
Yeah, when a business fails to self-regulate in a manner like this, the government often has to step in. That's how it works. Do you not know about all the issues with food and such during the Industrial Revolution prior to the government setting legal standards?
>>
>>299361
So Google avoids this by agreeing that they're engaging in censorship?
>>
>>299367
They became a monopoly due to the free market, so what's wrong with that?
>>
>>299385
You do understand there are regulations in place meant to undermine monopolies so that the free market is preserved, right?
>>
>>299389
>You're also proposing more regulation to fix the problems that you claim were caused by regulations.
Care to show where I did this?

As for the reason there's no specific law against this (yet), it's because this sort of informational gatekeeping is unprecedented. Corporations did not have the level of sheer influence over communication as Google, Facebook, and then like. However if they do engage in censorship then they are in the same violation of free speech as would be, say, the USPS fucking around with your personal mail because they think a particular narrative needs to be shunned or embraced.
>>
>>299379
Better to admit guilt than still get pegged with the crime and deal with conservative marytrdom, and if there's one thing conservatives do better than anyone else, yes even the SJWs, it's playing the victim.
>>
>>299402
So they avoid the conservative martyrdom by admitting the thing that would justify conservative martyrdom, accomplishing nothing while also opening themselves to legal reprocussions. That sounds like a bad plan.
>>
>>299402
If Google doesn't challenge it, the entire world - not just conservative retards who lurk the Breitbarts comment section - will treat it as true. It will make its way into mainstream journalism and be cited in the Congressional record and be examined by media regulators.

The notion that ANY corporate legal team would advocate conspiring with Breitbart to actively lie to the public is absolutely insane. Yeah, it's POSSIBLE that Google is playing some sort of million-dimensional chess game where actively libeling itself is good policy, but it's much MORE likely that your evidenceless conspiracy theory is just that: an evidenceless conspiracy theory.
>>
>>299385
Monopolies are are the opposite of a competitive free market. Competition=meritocracy=benefit of the magority.
>>
>>299378
I think their point is, Republicans complain about too many regulations and wanting a free market, until it comes to a company with a political viewpoint they don't like, then suddenly it's the government's responsibility to regulate the market.
>>
>>299639
>suddenly it's the government's responsibility to regulate the market

Yes, the unfortunate reality of living in a mixed economy is the need for government regulation.
>>
don't even think it's strictly political.

think it's got more to do with liability and/or "maintaining a good public image" for shareholders.
>>
>>299639
You’re blending new republicans and old too much. Vastly different outlooks (not including blindly right wing youth in their retarded young political stage, the stage that never ends for communists)
>>
Has anybody actual read the leaked document? I don't actually see anything about censorship. The word is used but not in the context of google censoring it's own searches.
>>
>>299868
Indeed. It seems to be bashing the whole idea of censorship all the way through.

Breitbart just presented it as the opposite, and people ate it up, I suppose. Not that Google isn't nefarious as fuck, but I see shit like this happening in the media more and more - presenting something as the exact opposite of what it is, and then their fans go onto defend the position, without ever bothering to read the material. They are so confident they won't, they even go so far as to link it.
>>
>>299941
Breitbart also went to all the trouble to highlight bits in bold so anyone who did glance at the document would only read the bits that made it sound like they were advocating censorship.
>>
>>299942
>Sound like they were advocating censorship
They are advocating for censorship though, as this power point leak seems to indicate there is an internal push to banish "bad behavior". How do they do this? Through vague goals of fair moderating, although what they aren't saying in this power point presentation is that this usually means they are creating algorithms to moderate an ocean they can't fully control which will crack down on anyone for anything deemed offensive or wrong.

That is censorship, and it's being casually praised through snappy graphics and small reassuring factoids. I mean define "bad behavior" to begin with topkek. For them it's apparently conspiracy theories like Google censoring information and being found to be biased, something they name directly in this "leak". If anything the tone of this exudes arrogance and obvious partisanship
>>
>>299971
Except the presentation goes on and on about what a bad and ineffective approach that is and all the blowback it can entail... If you bother to read more than the bits Breitbart decided to highlight.
>>
>>299979
>what a bad and ineffective approach that is
No. It doesn't. Did you read the same presentation, is actively encourages people to crack down on bad behavior. Multiple times, they are merely criticizing their current methods of censoring people.

>Muh Breitbart
I know you lefties are having a hard time dealing with things in a non-partisan issue but get over it.
>>
>>299979
They still have every intention to continue to censor people, nowhere in this presentation is if indiciatee otherwise.
>>
>>299971
>I mean define "bad behavior" to begin with topkek. For them it's apparently conspiracy theories like Google censoring information and being found to be biased, something they name directly in this "leak".
this last week i thought we unanimously agreed that being accused of something you think you didn't do made it 100% justified to respond with arrogant partisanship
>>
>>300107
>this last week i thought we unanimously agreed that being accused of something you think you didn't do made it 100% justified to respond with arrogant partisanship
No last week we all decided that any 35 year old claim of sexual assault deserves to be believed because of bourgeoise feminist indoctrination informing mass hysteria after a major Hollywood liberal was accused of sexual assault. Even if those claims are conveniently being used as a Machiavellian scheme to skirt democratically made appointments because in a few months the vote might favor your side differently :D.

I like how the Democrats are taking plays straight out of Goebells handbook on political subversion yet are pointing to the Republicans not being 100% willing to investigate Kavanaugh more than 4 times by the FBI like it's a problem.
>N-No don't you see this moral issue, a woman might have been raped we need to abstain from this vote until every manner of investigation is cleared to Snoop into Kavanaugh's life. Fucking gang rapist
>>
>>299220
And don't forget that it is a good thing npc
>>
>>299402
Conservatives don't play victim goy, they are the counterculture and therefore are the victims of the mainstream idealisms
Nice npc rationalization though, atleast you tried
>>
>>300118
that's really nice but do you agree or disagree with the premises that
- kavanaugh was arrogant and partisan during the hearing
- there was nothing wrong with this
>>
>>300121
Topkek. Probably the most careless attempt at goalposts shifting I've seen in awhile.
>Okay the entire controversy is informed by hysteria, been given state power, and purposefully lengthened to get around an actually important vote but let's focus less on the antagonists, did the Republicans respond with too much partisanship?

How about we focus on the aggressive party here my dude kek
>>
>>300126
>Topkek. Probably the most careless attempt at goalposts shifting I've seen in awhile.
literally nothing in my posts suggests that kavanaugh did anything particularly wrong and you're going off the wall ranting about it like i'm attempting to reenact the crucifixion

it's not that hard to answer the question
>>
>>300105
>>300106
Either we are looking at entirely different presentations, or you two are just Brietbartophiles.

https://www.scribd.com/document/390521673/The-Good-Censor-GOOGLE-LEAK#from_embed
>The importance of free speech.

>With free speech individuals hold the powerful to account!

>But censorship gives governments and companies the power to limit the freedom of individuals!

>The best remedy to evil consoles is the good ones - counter speech is more appropriate than suppression, reason will ultimately prevail!

>The internet was founded on the principles of free speech!

>This commitment to free, uncensored conversation has had positive outcomes!

>On the global scale, the internet and the social platforms have been a wonderful boon for free speech!

>(Four images of the "however" negative consequences of all of this that Breitbart quotes almost exclusively from, followed by...)

>Worrying signs of new government encroachments!

>Governments try to tighten their grip on political discourse by asking Google to censor more content!

>Tech firms should’ve been able to articulate a principle-based approach that was fairly applied to everyone, regardless of their political viewpoints!

>When it comes to users, all of this bad behaviour and mismanagement impacts trust, incites criticism, increases calls for regulation, and breeds conspiracy theories.

>Unhappy with the level of censorship on certain platforms, users are emigrating to ones with more or less restrictive rules.

>Meanwhile, as Twitter tries to counteract this by taking on a more curatorial and moderatorial role, communities that disagree with these changes are moving to less restrictive platforms!

(And so on, and so forth...) The article concludes that techs are in a catch-22 balance between creating a palatable environment and maintaining principles of free speech, that a rampant counter-reaction of censorship is in fact a major risk of that precarious balance, not a desired outcome.
>>
>>299385
Google doesn't have a monopoly on anything other than captcha tho
>>
>>300105
Holy shit this is why nobody takes you seriously just read the fucking memo you fucking retard
>>
>>300175
They have a greater than 50% share on search engines, GPS apps, and I'm pretty sure robotics since they bought Boston Dynamics. And soon to be self-driving cars since Tesla isn't going to have theirs on schedule. Google will have a self driving car years before anybody else.
>>
>>300175
>>300249
and they basically have a monopoly on video social media, ie Youtube.
>>
>>300249
>Google will have a self driving car years before anybody else.
And to think we have 4chan and the millions of captchas we solve everyday.. find the bicycles, find the motorcycles, find the traffic lights, find the street signs, find the cars, find the busses....
>>
>>299385
The same thing that was wrong with Standard Oil and Bell Telephone when they did the same thing in a free market.
>>
>>299200
Here's your bravado
>>299203
Here's your comeuppance
>>299204
Here's your motherfucking cope
>>
>>299200
>>299204
>>299201
report these users and move on
>>
>>300322
>>300323
Read the damned presentation, it's pretty much the exact opposite of what they are claiming it is. It's pretty much an elaborate case against rampant censorship and a warning of the consequences (citing Twitter's loss, among others).

We really need to start teaching kids about "spin" in elementary school. The left does this shit all the time as well. People just eat up whatever their football team suggests they should.
>>
>>300176
I actually did, unlike you apparently you absolute shit eating moron topkek
>>
>>300173
Wow, did you reallt just cherrypicked the entire fucking PowerPoint ahahahaha the fucking I'm way to happy right now to deal with morons like you.

There is an entire slide in this presentation that praises the crushing of bad behavior like "conspiracy theories" involving the questioning of Google. That should worry you a lot lol
>>
>>300158
Okay. Let's *still* not shift the goalposts and focus on the aggressive party lmao. The amount of ideologues on /new/ , fucking baka
>>
>>300326
>Read the damned presentation, it's pretty much the exact opposite of what they are claiming it is.
Not really. There is definitely still a willingess to censor "bad behavior" like racism and questioning corporate structures they are simply going over the failure of their strategies to enforce company policies by examining , to the best of their abilities, recent history involving their censorship.

To their credit they do aknowledge the failure of their algorithms and selective moderation being biased, but they do not any time suggest they are going to try and stop their censorship.

>>300173
The only reason they are saying this is because peole have been threatening to nationalize or heavily regulate Google in the western world. Google as an entity is just entering a temporary reactionary stage that will not last because they can't. As this presentation highlights.
>>
>>300335
The entire first half of the presentation exalts the values of free speech, curses the evils of censorship, and most of the second half harps on companies that have resorted to extreme reactionary censorship, and failed miserably as a result. Breitbart only quotes the four images in between where they talk about why governments and interest groups are pressuring them to censor.

It's true, they are, on the one hand, saying no moderation isn't an option for many of their social services, lest the government steps in and does it for them, in addition to bleeding the more sensitive customers to vitriol (let's face it, 4chan is not a universal business model) but the whole point of the article is demanding they find a more consistent, even handed, and happy medium.

>Tech firms should be able to articulate a principle-based approach that was fairly applied to everyone, regardless of their political viewpoints
Being the defining sentence.

It's not anything like "let's crack down on the fucking alt-righters full steam right nao!" as Breitbart spins it.
>>
>>300333
>Wow, did you reallt just cherrypicked the entire fucking PowerPoint
You found one bad slide out of an 80 slide document? And they're the one cherrypicking?
>>
>>300341
Pretty much this. Google's aim has always been to serve the most number of people with their product.

You lose customers with too much censorship. Pick your poison for an example there, I'm gonna go with conservapedia.

You lose customers with NO censorship as well. My selected example is /b/. Even having been on this site for around a decade I've gone there all of two times, and regretted it.
>>
>>300105
Except it doesn't you dunce. Their own words are "Moderate tone not content".
>>
>rational debate is damaged when authoritative voices and ‘have a go’ commentators receive equal weighting.
Quoted from the memo. How much more obvious can they make it that they don't believe there is any legitimate reason to question authority? They might as well have simply stated that your right to speak is null when compared to their interests, same meaning.
>>
>>299291
Soon moshi
>>
>>300441
>draw retarded implications from a reasonable statement rephrased to sound extra retarded
>make fun of those implications
you can do better than that
>>
>>300173
>using section titles and quotes from the background sections as if they show an opinion from Google
If Breitbart was misrepresenting the presentation you're doing the same. The fact that Google is having internal conversations about censorship and has been caught allowing political bias to influence their services before is reason enough for concern. Unless you're this anon >>299221 and are trying to argue there's nothing surprising or truly damning here, which I would agree with.
>>
>>300466
Why do shills even bother, so blatant.
>>
>>299322
Because Free speech is a cornerstone of our society. It, as a principle, isn't worth very much if you don't fight for it in everything that you do.

Sure, the government is the only entity LEGALLY required to provide free speech, but that doesn't suddenly mean the principle itself is a legal entity. It's a moral principle, and you can't consider yourself moral if you want to take away the speech of others.

It's kind of like accusations and the burden of proof being on the accuser. It's legally defined as being that way, but that's also the default moral stance for most people. The idea that an accusation's proof lies on the accuser is merely a standard moral value just like the freedom of speech is in our western society.

Not that you would know anything about accusing someone without evidence, right?
>>
Also the fact that the topic has changed from Google being objectively a garbage company attempting to brainwash their users to people trying to re-define words shows we have some desperate people on /news/.

I don't even know why they do it, to be honest. How could you defend something like Google's actions, here? Because they're big and you think of them as being on 'your side'? Please, don't be naive and stupid.
>>
>>299276
>Responding to the leak, an official Google source said the document should be considered internal research, and not an official company position.
Retard.
Fixed quote: We got caught and it's up to our army of NPC white knights to save us.
>>
>>300466
Rational debate (what we've declared rational, which just so happens to serve our interests) is damaged when authoritative voices (voices that support our interests) and 'have a go' commentators (voices that counter our interests) receive equal weighting.

Was that a fairer translation? Good, because the meaning is identical.
>Inb4 the shill army tries to rationalize this with nonsense statements like "But you're not an authority cause we said so, so your voice shouldn't have equal weight!!!"
>>
>>300517
>Was that a fairer translation?
It's in English. You don't have to translate it.
>>
>>300538
Wow a literal retard
>>
>>300551
"Translation" in this context means throwing out what was actually said and replacing it what you imagine they're saying.

It's stupid and so are you.
>>
>>300557
It's a perfectly fine use of the word, the retard is the one who can't handle a metaphor (that's you)
>>
>>300559
The word ya'll are looking for is "interpretation".

My interpretation is that the document basically says Google wants to value freedom of speech, but can't to a limitless degree, due to both public and government pressure to crack down on extremists and political manipulation, but observing the moderation efforts of other companies, they are stressing the point that extreme censorship has its own potential pitfalls, and thus uneven and reactionary moderation is to be avoided.

Breitbart's interpretation is that Google is planning to kill all Republican's in their sleep with Amazon drones.

Google certainly fails at its "don't be evil" mantra, but well, so do all these clickbait spin media companies, who have no such slogan.
>>
>>300559
>the retard is the one who can't handle a metaphor
If you say something and I rewrite it a different way that's not a metaphor. That's literally just making shit up.





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.