Google Workers Discussed Tweaking Search to Counter Travel Ban

[Shepherd]

Of course they never implemented anything ;)

[finance.yahoo.com...]

[aristotle]

Discussions here involving politics tread on thin ice

[Shepherd]

As they do everywhere.

The point of this discussion might be how google employees actively discuss manipulating search results to further their beliefs.

[Leosghost]

What you have to ask yourself, is would this be a problem to you if their beliefs were aligned with your own ?

btw..I have no idea what the article talks about as it sends me to Yahoo ( which then redirects me to Oath, because my IP address is European.. which is a non GDPR compliant site and page and which asks me to accept their tracking in order to get to the article , which is "a non GDPR compliant" "non choice"..

However the question is one of ethics..politics is tangential , except that as a very good friend ( now dead ) once said to me.."Everything one does is a political act, pretending otherwise is , self delusion"..

[Shepherd]

would this be a problem to you if their beliefs were aligned with your own ?

Problem, no problem, irrelevant. I think it is important to understand the facts regarding the goals of those that provide (or organize) information.

[Leosghost]

That is what I mean..

So..it is a question of ethics..

The goals of those that provide ( or organize information ) are also irrelevant..

[NickMNS]

Yesterday I posted a link to a podcast from RadioLab
[webmasterworld.com...]
where they discuss how content is moderated at Facebook. It is very interesting and addresses exactly the issue raised here.

[Shepherd]

In my mind, more of a question of transparency.

[Leosghost]

Companies do not have to be transparent..they are answerable only to their shareholders..via shareholder votes..one share, one vote..
Governments do have to be transparent.. they, theoretically, are answerable to their citizens..via those citizens votes, one person, one vote..

[rainborick]

In the case of Google, of course, at the end of the day, there's really only two shareholders that matter - Page & Brin. They hold a controlling share of the voting stock. Everybody else is just along for the ride.

[robzilla]

One of the emails, from an employee of the Search Product Marketing division, explained that there was a “large brainstorm” going throughout the company’s marketing division over how to respond. (emphasis mine)

So, non-news, basically. Pure sensationalism. Might as well have been a discussion among the janitors. What's mostly worrying about this, is that there are apparently several folks in that marketing division who are dim-witted enough to raise this idea and then smell a juicy (and negative) headline and forward it to the Wall Street Journal (who'll run anything, of course).

[Shepherd]

Companies do not have to be transparent.

Nobody said they did. Transparency does not need to be initiated from within. I find it adorable that you are so interested in arguing about an article you admittedly did not read.

Governments do have to be transparent

Irrelevant to this non political discussion.

Might as well have been a discussion among the janitors

May have also included the janitors. Seems, according to the article, there were several divisions and executives included in the discussions.

[Leosghost]

The article is behind an illegal snoop wall / tracker wall..
I'm discussing ethics..and accountability..and transparency..
The goals of those who organise / provide information would also apply to those who label "fake", facts that they do not wish others to hear about..
Something about motes and beams comes to mind..
or..as I mentioned in another thread recently..
When you point a finger at someone, three other fingers on your own hand are pointing back at you..

[robzilla]

Seems, according to the article, there were several divisions and executives included in the discussions.

That's fine, but nothing in the story shows that the people actually working on Search were involved in any way, and yet the suggestion is made, in a pars pro toto sweep, that Google, the company, was looking into changing the algorithm to serve a political agenda (but decided not to). It's bad enough that an employee would suggest it, apparently having no idea how algorithms are built (but also somewhat understandable given the emotional nature of the situation), but it's much worse to then turn that into cheap click-bait (or "fake news", if you will).

[Shepherd]

and yet the suggestion is made

That certainly seems more of a comprehension error than a suggestion made by the article.