An investigation by CBS News’ “60 Minutes” found that “over 300 video ads were taken down by Google and YouTube, mostly over the summer, for violating company policy.”
The story Fyk is telling, in this case, goes beyond the question of whether Facebook is a publisher or a platform, which has been the subject of a lot of talk lately. The argument Fyk is making is that Facebook acted as a “Developer of information,” thus making Facebook an “internet content provider” by legal definition under Section 230(f)(3), and that Facebook is pretty much competing with its own users and there is zero legal immunity for that.
The argument of publisher vs platform is a publisher can be held liable for things published on their site, while a platform gets immunity.
On Sunday Right Side Broadcasting Network announced that after 300 million+ views of PresidentTrump rallies and four years of following the rules on YouTube, their live-streaming ability was taken away with no explanation.
Just what are some of the methods that tech giants like Google and Facebook can use to shift their users’ attitudes, beliefs, and even votes?
How do search engine rankings impact undecided voters?
How powerful of an impact can search engine algorithms have on our perceptions and actions, without us even knowing?
Fifty attorneys general are joining an investigation into Google over possible antitrust violations, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, the initiative’s leader, announced Monday.
The news confirms reports last week about the bipartisan investigation into Google’s practices. The probe includes attorneys general from 48 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. California and Alabama are not involved in the probe, Paxton said at a press conference.
Google has likely been determining the outcomes of upwards of 25 percent of the national elections worldwide since at least 2015. This is because many races are very close and because Google’s persuasive technologies are very powerful.
In the weeks leading up to the 2018 election, bias in Google’s search results may have shifted upwards of 78.2 million votes to the candidates of one political party (spread across hundreds of local and regional races). This number is based on data captured by my 2018 monitoring system, which preserved more than 47,000 election-related searches on Google, Bing, and Yahoo, along with the nearly 400,000 web pages to which the search results linked. Strong political bias toward one party was evident, once again, in Google searches.
Many Westerners are disturbed by what they read about China’s social credit system. But such systems, it turns out, are not unique to China. A parallel system is developing in the United States, in part as the result of Silicon Valley and technology-industry user policies, and in part by surveillance of social media activity by private companies.
Here are some of the elements of America’s growing social credit system.
When Google’s employees or algorithms decide to block our access to information about a news item, political candidate or business, opinions and votes can shift, reputations can be ruined and businesses can crash and burn. Because online censorship is entirely unregulated at the moment, victims have little or no recourse when they have been harmed. Eventually, authorities will almost certainly have to step in, just as they did when credit bureaus were regulated in 1970. The alternative would be to allow a large corporation to wield an especially destructive kind of power that should be exercised with great restraint and should belong only to the public: the power to shame or exclude.
Project Veritas’s latest exposé gave “smoking gun proof” that Google’s executives, including CEO Sundar Pichai, “have been lying under oath” and “perjuring themselves before Congress,” said Dr. Robert Epstein, senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology
A Google insider who anonymously leaked internal documents to Project Veritas made the decision to go public in an on-the-record video interview. The insider, Zachary Vorhies, decided to go public after receiving a letter from Google, and after he says Google allegedly called the police to perform a “wellness check” on him.