Google allegedly prevent Trump from winning in 2020, push far left agenda

[PrimeNumber7]

I am surprised to not see any threads about this yet.

Project Veritas recently released hidden cam footage of conversations with Google executive detailing plans to meddle in the 2020 presidential election to prevent Trump from getting reelelcted. The video also features someone who claims to be a google "insider" detailing how Google uses its various search features to push a far left win agenda, such as using "auto complete" to provide suggestions to "men can" such as "can pregnant", "have babies" and "have periods".

James O'Keefe, founder of Project Veritas has claimed YouTube censored the above referenced video by removing the video from its platform. He has also claimed the project veritas reddit account has been banned very shortly after publishing said video.

US Representative Gohmert of Texas has responded to the video saying, in part:

This video shows Google’s biases are now a threat to a free and fair election

I saw some reports that Project Veritas' website was down earlier in the day, but this might have been fake. As of now, their website is running, and they are hosting the video themselves. I cannot find a way to upload the video here as a mirror.

I think this should concern you, even if you dislike President Trump. It should not be up to a few people inside a monopoly to decide who gets elected and what policies get pushed onto Americans. If you want to change the beliefs of other Americans, you should use persuasion to change my mind, not what amounts to censorship and manipulation. 

[1714928824]

1714928824

[Quickseller]

It seems that google (and other major tech companies) are in fact abusing section 230 of the DCMA.

The tech companies have not quite gotten this bad -- it appears they are moving in this direction -- a company may ban all speech except those derogatory to a certain group of political ideology (or in favor of that groups competitor), and claim the content on their platform is user generated and as such exempt from libel liability. I do not think this is what was intended when section 230 was drafted, I believe the intention was to allow for competing ideas to be published.   

[TECSHARE]

Veristas is doing amazing work. As you can see, mostly as a result of their Pinterest story, there is a tidal wave of whistle blowers emerging, and based on how they are reacting to all of Project Veritas's platforms by trying to silence them, they are terrified of this. I predict we will be seeing lots more leakers, at least up until 2020.

[Astargath]

It seems that google (and other major tech companies) are in fact abusing section 230 of the DCMA.

The tech companies have not quite gotten this bad -- it appears they are moving in this direction -- a company may ban all speech except those derogatory to a certain group of political ideology (or in favor of that groups competitor), and claim the content on their platform is user generated and as such exempt from libel liability. I do not think this is what was intended when section 230 was drafted, I believe the intention was to allow for competing ideas to be published.   

It has been happening since trump got elected, youtube/google, facebook or twitter. All of those are banning people that support trump, youtube is clearly demonetizing trump supporters and conservatives, they are not even hiding it at this point, its blatantly there.

[fatnet]

im not left, im right as fuck, but:
if u are talking about ethical part of google's actions, i think intervening to the google's servers and deciding how they would work, while not being an owner of these servers, is much less ethical than giving google a right to decide what rules are ok on the servers they own.
if you want to make google feel worse, but you dont want to do unethical actions, you can do the way i did: i just stopped using google, because of their actions. atm the only search engines i use are duckduckgo(for international search) and yandex(for local cis search on russian language), so you can switch to duckduckgo.
if its really essential for ppl to have free speech google, a lot of ppl would stop using google. and google will see, that their income has decreased a lot, and after that they will change their policy. if you really want to make world better: stop using google.

[TECSHARE]

im not left, im right as fuck, but:
if u are talking about ethical part of google's actions, i think intervening to the google's servers and deciding how they would work, while not being an owner of these servers, is much less ethical than giving google a right to decide what rules are ok on the servers they own.
if you want to make google feel worse, but you dont want to do unethical actions, you can do the way i did: i just stopped using google, because of their actions. atm the only search engines i use are duckduckgo(for international search) and yandex(for local cis search on russian language), so you can switch to duckduckgo.
if its really essential for ppl to have free speech google, a lot of ppl would stop using google. and google will see, that their income has decreased a lot, and after that they will change their policy. if you really want to make world better: stop using google.

As Quickseller already stated, they are in violation of existing laws. They have to either be a public commons and allow all legal posts, or a publisher which can curate posts as they please but are also responsible for what is posted. They can't be both. I agree with your premise of not using their services, but realistically that is nearly impossible unless you are Amish.

[fatnet]

im not left, im right as fuck, but:
if u are talking about ethical part of google's actions, i think intervening to the google's servers and deciding how they would work, while not being an owner of these servers, is much less ethical than giving google a right to decide what rules are ok on the servers they own.
if you want to make google feel worse, but you dont want to do unethical actions, you can do the way i did: i just stopped using google, because of their actions. atm the only search engines i use are duckduckgo(for international search) and yandex(for local cis search on russian language), so you can switch to duckduckgo.
if its really essential for ppl to have free speech google, a lot of ppl would stop using google. and google will see, that their income has decreased a lot, and after that they will change their policy. if you really want to make world better: stop using google.

As Quickseller already stated, they are in violation of existing laws. They have to either be a public commons and allow all legal posts, or a publisher which can curate posts as they please but are also responsible for what is posted. They can't be both. I agree with your premise of not using their services, but realistically that is nearly impossible unless you are Amish.

as i said, i was talking about ethics.
laws are not the truth or ethics criteria

[TECSHARE]

im not left, im right as fuck, but:
if u are talking about ethical part of google's actions, i think intervening to the google's servers and deciding how they would work, while not being an owner of these servers, is much less ethical than giving google a right to decide what rules are ok on the servers they own.
if you want to make google feel worse, but you dont want to do unethical actions, you can do the way i did: i just stopped using google, because of their actions. atm the only search engines i use are duckduckgo(for international search) and yandex(for local cis search on russian language), so you can switch to duckduckgo.
if its really essential for ppl to have free speech google, a lot of ppl would stop using google. and google will see, that their income has decreased a lot, and after that they will change their policy. if you really want to make world better: stop using google.

As Quickseller already stated, they are in violation of existing laws. They have to either be a public commons and allow all legal posts, or a publisher which can curate posts as they please but are also responsible for what is posted. They can't be both. I agree with your premise of not using their services, but realistically that is nearly impossible unless you are Amish.

as i said, i was talking about ethics.
laws are not the truth or ethics criteria

Well a lot of people would argue it is at minimum unethical if not illegal for them to try to manipulate free elections.

[fatnet]

im not left, im right as fuck, but:
if u are talking about ethical part of google's actions, i think intervening to the google's servers and deciding how they would work, while not being an owner of these servers, is much less ethical than giving google a right to decide what rules are ok on the servers they own.
if you want to make google feel worse, but you dont want to do unethical actions, you can do the way i did: i just stopped using google, because of their actions. atm the only search engines i use are duckduckgo(for international search) and yandex(for local cis search on russian language), so you can switch to duckduckgo.
if its really essential for ppl to have free speech google, a lot of ppl would stop using google. and google will see, that their income has decreased a lot, and after that they will change their policy. if you really want to make world better: stop using google.

As Quickseller already stated, they are in violation of existing laws. They have to either be a public commons and allow all legal posts, or a publisher which can curate posts as they please but are also responsible for what is posted. They can't be both. I agree with your premise of not using their services, but realistically that is nearly impossible unless you are Amish.

as i said, i was talking about ethics.
laws are not the truth or ethics criteria

Well a lot of people would argue it is at minimum unethical if not illegal for them to try to manipulate free elections.

yeah, its unethical, but forbidding them doing this is much less ethical, ive already wrote my first reply in this thread about this

[mOgliE]

Who would have thought that giving too much power to companies without regulating them is a bad idea?

Incredible no?

[fatnet]

Who would have thought that giving too much power to companies without regulating them is a bad idea?

Incredible no?

corporation called google has too much power?
lets give enough power to corporation called america to destroy it.
lol

[Spendulus]

im not left, im right as fuck, but:
if u are talking about ethical part of google's actions, i think intervening to the google's servers and deciding how they would work, while not being an owner of these servers, is much less ethical than giving google a right to decide what rules are ok on the servers they own.
if you want to make google feel worse, but you dont want to do unethical actions, you can do the way i did: i just stopped using google, because of their actions. atm the only search engines i use are duckduckgo(for international search) and yandex(for local cis search on russian language), so you can switch to duckduckgo.
if its really essential for ppl to have free speech google, a lot of ppl would stop using google. and google will see, that their income has decreased a lot, and after that they will change their policy. if you really want to make world better: stop using google.

As Quickseller already stated, they are in violation of existing laws. They have to either be a public commons and allow all legal posts, or a publisher which can curate posts as they please but are also responsible for what is posted. They can't be both. I agree with your premise of not using their services, but realistically that is nearly impossible unless you are Amish.

as i said, i was talking about ethics.
laws are not the truth or ethics criteria

Well a lot of people would argue it is at minimum unethical if not illegal for them to try to manipulate free elections.

yeah, its unethical, but forbidding them doing this is much less ethical, ive already wrote my first reply in this thread about this

Nobody is forbidding them to break existing law.

There are simply clear consequences if they do, and they have.

Nobody is going to prevent them from doing things that cause them to do significant jail time.

[TECSHARE]

Kind of like Russia.

Pay no attention to the millions of foreign nationals being allowed to flood over our border to manipulate voting demographics. What is important is Russia bought $2000 worth of Facefuck ads!

[fatnet]

im not left, im right as fuck, but:
if u are talking about ethical part of google's actions, i think intervening to the google's servers and deciding how they would work, while not being an owner of these servers, is much less ethical than giving google a right to decide what rules are ok on the servers they own.
if you want to make google feel worse, but you dont want to do unethical actions, you can do the way i did: i just stopped using google, because of their actions. atm the only search engines i use are duckduckgo(for international search) and yandex(for local cis search on russian language), so you can switch to duckduckgo.
if its really essential for ppl to have free speech google, a lot of ppl would stop using google. and google will see, that their income has decreased a lot, and after that they will change their policy. if you really want to make world better: stop using google.

As Quickseller already stated, they are in violation of existing laws. They have to either be a public commons and allow all legal posts, or a publisher which can curate posts as they please but are also responsible for what is posted. They can't be both. I agree with your premise of not using their services, but realistically that is nearly impossible unless you are Amish.

as i said, i was talking about ethics.
laws are not the truth or ethics criteria

Well a lot of people would argue it is at minimum unethical if not illegal for them to try to manipulate free elections.

yeah, its unethical, but forbidding them doing this is much less ethical, ive already wrote my first reply in this thread about this

Nobody is forbidding them to break existing law.

There are simply clear consequences if they do, and they have.

Nobody is going to prevent them from doing things that cause them to do significant jail time.

freedom of speech and freedom of association cant exist without each other. while blocking google on banning ppl they want to ban on their servers they own you are being a threat to their freedom of association, which, btw, was in your law list till, if im not mistaking, 60s
ive already said, that laws are not the criteria of anything

[Spendulus]

...
freedom of speech and freedom of association cant exist without each other. while blocking google on banning ppl they want to ban on their servers they own you are being a threat to their freedom of association, which, btw, was in your law list till, if im not mistaking, 60s
ive already said, that laws are not the criteria of anything

What you are really saying is (blah-blah-blah) it's okay for Google to dictate the results of the next election.

And no, it's not.

[Mastrhiggins]

Kind of like Russia.

Pay no attention to the millions of foreign nationals being allowed to flood over our border to manipulate voting demographics. What is important is Russia bought $2000 worth of Facefuck ads!

They can't vote so what are you talking about.

[TECSHARE]

Kind of like Russia.

Pay no attention to the millions of foreign nationals being allowed to flood over our border to manipulate voting demographics. What is important is Russia bought $2000 worth of Facefuck ads!

They can't vote so what are you talking about.

It is illegal for them to vote*

There, I fixed that for you.

[Mastrhiggins]

Kind of like Russia.

Pay no attention to the millions of foreign nationals being allowed to flood over our border to manipulate voting demographics. What is important is Russia bought $2000 worth of Facefuck ads!

They can't vote so what are you talking about.

It is illegal for them to vote*

There, I fixed that for you.

Oh you are one of those conspiracy theorists I see.

So do not focus on Russia influencing the election because it favored your side but all of a sudden you are worried about Google doing the same thing.   Wonder why?

[PrimeNumber7]

Please discuss the Russia hoax elsewhere. That is off topic here.

im not left, im right as fuck, but:
if u are talking about ethical part of google's actions, i think intervening to the google's servers and deciding how they would work, while not being an owner of these servers, is much less ethical than giving google a right to decide what rules are ok on the servers they own.
if you want to make google feel worse, but you dont want to do unethical actions, you can do the way i did: i just stopped using google, because of their actions. atm the only search engines i use are duckduckgo(for international search) and yandex(for local cis search on russian language), so you can switch to duckduckgo.
if its really essential for ppl to have free speech google, a lot of ppl would stop using google. and google will see, that their income has decreased a lot, and after that they will change their policy. if you really want to make world better: stop using google.

This is the classic Libertarian view. I usually am in favor of free markets, but not with the major tech companies. I don’t think these companies are doing business fairly in an objective sense. They earn money via advertising for the most part and mostly do not charge their users. In an open and free market, I would expect to see companies compete with google and other tech companies by paying customers to use their services but we are not seeing that. 

More importantly, google and other tech companies have special protection from the government from legal liability for libel. In exchange for receiving this protection, it should not be unreasonable to expect these companies to be neutral, at least towards mainstream ideas.

[r1s2g3]

Surprising, Are you saying that Trump is not aware of it and did not warn these companies?
I think companies can be held accountable if they are discriminating the user on the basis of their political associations.