On June 24, 2019 Project Veritas has published a video and written information about the deliberate manufacturing of consent by Google and its daughter Youtube.
They prove that users' content and search queries are influenced by a political agenda and that a re-election of President Trump (R) is supposed to be prevented.
For this it is being worked on for at least since the election of Trump (R) in 2016.
Censorship of hatred would require people or rules from people who distinguish hatred from criticism. In any case it would be people to differentiate. Hate and criticism however have a common intersection of interpretation depending on one's own position. In addition it is not yet clear whether the statement or the position of the addressed person is questionable or illegitimate. Thus a censorship would again be a projection of power even if it was driven by morality.
But the publications of Project Veritas now show a different approach. Here people no longer stand for themselves but for the artificial collectives to which they are assigned to.
Rubin Report , Tim Pool , Rubin Report
Examples include the electoral success of the Alternative for Germany (AfD), Donald Trump (R) and IS propaganda in one order. [3,p.20ff] As a justification for censorship the paper lists the possible spread of conspiracies. An example of this is the claim by Trump (R) durin the election campaign in 2016 that Google suppressed search results, or exactly what Project Veritas has now uncovered. [3,p.52ff] In addition the questionable Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) from Germany is praised. [3,p.62ff] See:
NetzDG
The paper admits that large platforms such as Google, Facebook and Twitter initially promised freedom of expression and that it was in the DNA of the Silicon Valley corporations. The paper claims that large platforms are in a conflict between the unmediated marketplace of ideas and a well-ordered spaces for safety and civility. However it is not discussed who and/or how to distinguish. And it is also not discussed how to prevent power instead of morality to take the upper hand. [3,p.71ff]
[1] Insider Blows Whistle & Exec Reveals Google Plan to Prevent “Trump situation” in 2020 on Hidden Cam 2019-06-24
https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/24/insider-blows-whistle-exec-reveals-google-plan-to-prevent-trump-situation-in-2020-on-hidden-cam/
[2] Insider Blows Whistle & Exec Reveals Google Plan to Prevent "Trump situation" in 2020 on Hidden Cam 2019-06-24
https://youtu.be/re9Xp6cdkro
https://youtu.be/cM7QLKeJ7Sc
https://vimeo.com/344068138
[3] ‘THE GOOD CENSOR’: Leaked Google Briefing Admits Abandonment of Free Speech for ‘Safety And Civility’ 2018-10-09
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/10/09/the-good-censor-leaked-google-briefing-admits-abandonment-of-free-speech-for-safety-and-civility/
https://www.scribd.com/document/390521673/The-Good-Censor-GOOGLE-LEAK
Fairness
Freedom of expression and democracy go hand in hand. For the free competition of ideas the possibility to get to know information and ideas and to be heard is by definition indispensable. Exceptions are the call for crimes and appeals that can disturb public peace such as the false warning of fire in cramped rooms. Everything else would be a some sort of dictatorship.Censorship of hatred would require people or rules from people who distinguish hatred from criticism. In any case it would be people to differentiate. Hate and criticism however have a common intersection of interpretation depending on one's own position. In addition it is not yet clear whether the statement or the position of the addressed person is questionable or illegitimate. Thus a censorship would again be a projection of power even if it was driven by morality.
But the publications of Project Veritas now show a different approach. Here people no longer stand for themselves but for the artificial collectives to which they are assigned to.
My definition of fairness and bias specifically talks about historically marginalized communities. And that's who I care about. Communities who are in power and have traditionally been in power are not who I'm solving fairness for.Jen Gennai is the head of "Responsible Innovation" at Google. "Responsible Innovation" is a department that monitors the responsible implementation of algorithms through machine learning.
Jen Gennai (Google) [2,alt,04m54s]
We all got screwed over in 2016, again it wasn’t just us, it was, the people got screwed over, the news media got screwed over, like, everybody got screwed over so we’re rapidly been like, what happened there and how do we prevent it from happening again.In addition Gennai's stated goal is to prevent Donald Trump (R) from being re-elected in 2020. And to achieve this and probably other goals she sees the possibility that Google will be broken up into smaller companies as a great danger.
Jen Gennai (Google) [2,alt,03m00s]
Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better it will make it worse, because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that.
Jen Gennai (Google) [2,alt,01m35s]
Algorithmic Unfairness
Even if senior employees of a group like Google have such a drastic opinion this is legitimate. At least questionable however is to exploit one's own position in order to influence the search results on the basis of a political agenda. But that's exactly what Gennai admitted.We’re also training our algorithms, like, if 2016 happened again, would we have, would the outcome be different?In addition to the recordings of Gennai Project Veritas also received internal information from an anonymous employee. According to him Google has changed the search algorithms so that users on YouTube which belongs to Google are deliberately diverted to left leaning content even from liberal content.
Jen Gennai (Google) [2,alt,00m50s]
What YouTube did is they changed the results of the recommendation engine. And so what the recommendation engine is it tries to do, is it tries to say, well, if you like A, then you’re probably going to like B. So content that is similar to Dave Rubin or Tim Pool, instead of listing Dave Rubin or Tim Pool as people that you might like, what they’re doing is that they’re trying to suggest different, different news outlets, for example, like CNN, or MSNBC, or these left leaning political outlets.Through appropriate systematic references to desired content and the systematic hiding of unwanted content Google and YouTube engage in manufacturing consent. An example of this is to influence statistically truthful representations in favor of a political agenda. For example looking for CEOs (Chief Executive Officers) would probably show a male majority since most CEOs are men. This is considered a problem and is called algorithmic unfairness. In fact the results are adjusted to suit the desired diversity.
Insider [1]
Definition of Algorithmic UnfairnessThe algorithms of Google and YouTube are thus adjusted in favor of a political agenda and not in favor of neutrality. This also affects the completion of queries. For example if one enters "men can" then "men can have babies", "men can get pregnant" and "men can have periods" are proposed. But if one enters "women can" then "women can choose", "women can do anything" and "women can be confiscated" are proposed. However this is not because this is most sought after but because the algorithms of Google and YouTube have been adjusted accordingly.
Definition
"algorithmic unfairness" means unjust or prejudicial treatment of people that is related to sensitive characteristics such as race, income, sexual orientation, or gender, through algorithmic systems or algorithmically aided decision-making. [1]
whether or how a given algorithmic behavior should be addessed.Worrying is that even harmless content is treated like illegitimate content. For example contents of Tim Pool and Dave Rubin are classified as right-wing and put under increased observation. While Pool mainly reads news and calls himself a leftist Rubin conducts interviews beyond ideological boundaries and calls himself a classic liberal. See:
If a representation is factually accurate, can it still be algorithmic unfairness?
Yes. For example, imagine that a Google image query for "CEOs" shows predominantly men. Even if it were factually accurate representation of the world, it would be algorithmic unfairness because it would reinforce a stereotype about the role of women in leadership positions. However, factual accuracy may affect product policy's position on whether or how it should be addressed. In some cases, it may be appropriate to take no action if the system accurately affects current reality, while in other cases it may be desirable to consider how we might help society reach a more fair and equitable state, via either product intervention or broader corporate social responsibility efforts.
If a system's behavior is not intended, can it still be algorithmic unfairness?
Yes. If the behavior is unfair, it meets the definition regardless of the root cause. [1]
Rubin Report , Tim Pool , Rubin Report
The Good Censor
The current publications are strikingly reminiscent of the Google internal paper "The Good Censor" which was leaked in October 2018. In the Google internal paper "The Good Censor" it is openly described how and why censorship should take place. The ideal of freedom of expression is dismissed as a utopian narrative that has been undermined by recent global events and glorifies censorship as utopian. [3,p.19ff]Examples include the electoral success of the Alternative for Germany (AfD), Donald Trump (R) and IS propaganda in one order. [3,p.20ff] As a justification for censorship the paper lists the possible spread of conspiracies. An example of this is the claim by Trump (R) durin the election campaign in 2016 that Google suppressed search results, or exactly what Project Veritas has now uncovered. [3,p.52ff] In addition the questionable Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) from Germany is praised. [3,p.62ff] See:
NetzDG
The paper admits that large platforms such as Google, Facebook and Twitter initially promised freedom of expression and that it was in the DNA of the Silicon Valley corporations. The paper claims that large platforms are in a conflict between the unmediated marketplace of ideas and a well-ordered spaces for safety and civility. However it is not discussed who and/or how to distinguish. And it is also not discussed how to prevent power instead of morality to take the upper hand. [3,p.71ff]
[1] Insider Blows Whistle & Exec Reveals Google Plan to Prevent “Trump situation” in 2020 on Hidden Cam 2019-06-24
https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/24/insider-blows-whistle-exec-reveals-google-plan-to-prevent-trump-situation-in-2020-on-hidden-cam/
[2] Insider Blows Whistle & Exec Reveals Google Plan to Prevent "Trump situation" in 2020 on Hidden Cam 2019-06-24
https://youtu.be/re9Xp6cdkro
https://youtu.be/cM7QLKeJ7Sc
https://vimeo.com/344068138
[3] ‘THE GOOD CENSOR’: Leaked Google Briefing Admits Abandonment of Free Speech for ‘Safety And Civility’ 2018-10-09
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/10/09/the-good-censor-leaked-google-briefing-admits-abandonment-of-free-speech-for-safety-and-civility/
https://www.scribd.com/document/390521673/The-Good-Censor-GOOGLE-LEAK
Kommentare
Kommentar veröffentlichen