Rumble Gets to See Some of the Google Algo

[Brett_Tabke]

An extremely SEO significant legal decision (sorry it is such a poor article - I generally like Greenwald, but this one is out there):


[greenwald.substack.com...]

Friday's decision against Google ensures that the suit now proceeds to the discovery stage, where Rumble will have the right to obtain from Google a broad and sweeping range of information about its practices, including internal documents on Google's algorithmic manipulation of its search engine and the onerous requirements it imposes on companies dependent upon its infrastructure to all but force customers to use YouTube.

greenwald.substack.com Court Rejects Google's Attempt to Dismiss Rumble's Antitrust Lawsuit, Ensuring Vast Discovery An unusual and significant court ruling entitles YouTube's main competitor, Rumble, to obtain long-hidden internal documents on Google's search engine manipulations.

[phranque]

sorry it is such a poor article

he certainly gave his journalism jacket a heave-ho before he sharpened his pencil today...

i can't wait for the leaks, though!

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

The real fight isn't in the courtroom, it's in the court of public perception and the reward is users.

I wouldn't hold my breath for informative leaks though, Phranque, as the leaking will be dismissed if it's not on "approved" websites and will be pro-Google only if it is. Isn't that always the case in David vs Goliath showdowns?

Either way, hopefully the public wins! I've always thought that big social platforms needed to be open-source to avoid such claims and lawsuits but maybe we'll gain some insight into what we have.

[phranque]

... the leaking will be dismissed if it's not on "approved" websites ...

"approved" by whom?

[tangor]

Heh ... whoever it comes from, the PR damage from the "gossiping web" (which we know exists) will have an impact. If nothing else, questions have been raised that only facts can answer.

TBD down the line!

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

"approved" by whom?

The collective? I'm answering because you asked - If you linked to each news site that provides an opinion on this you'll see which links get taken down and called not news. "Whom" is the group doing the moderating and what is approved varies by site. There is no monopoly on truth and moderation can be polarizing, especially when what was believed to be wrong is shown to be right.

That's why I'm glad the courts ruled to allow discovery, We the public get to see more behind the curtains stuff and make up our own minds, and hear different opinions. As Brett said, the SEO implications might be significant.

[martinibuster]

Rumble can choose to show anti-American Russian propaganda from RT (Russia Today), that's up to them. In the USA we have that freedom to choose (unlike in Russia where they do not).

Does Rumble publish Al-Qaeda propaganda, too? Give it a test and see how long that post lasts. Rumble has the freedom to block Al-Qaeda anti-American propaganda, that's Rumble's right to free speech in action.

Google's opinion (which I agree with) is that harmful disinformation shouldn't be allowed to be published on their platform.

I don't allow that sh-it on any of my sites, that's my right. Everyone has a right to choose what kind of content is allowed to be published on their own site. The U.S. Government cannot infringe on that free speech right.

And that's the problem with Rumble's lawsuit, is that they are asking the U.S. government to infringe on the Right to Free Speech, by telling Google to allow s-it content in their SERPs.

Is Google being anti-competitive by exercising their right to free speech by blocking harmful content?

If the judge rules that Google doesn't have the right to free speech then Al Qaeda wins the right to publish their anti-American posts on Rumble.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Is Google being anti-competitive by exercising their right to free speech by blocking harmful content?

In that context, probably? Free speech is your right to share your opinion in a lawful manner. Free speech is not a tool or right to silence others whom you disagree with. I bolded the problematic part. I'm in Canada so, for me, it's in the charter of rights and freedoms, section 2b.

I'm not going to debate "misinformation" or what Google can and can't censor, thankfully the courts are going to decide that, I guess. Also, if my response offends you please take the time to re-read it as no offense is intended. I also can't remember even reading about Al Queda in a long time so I don't know what propaganda you're referring to. It's not for this forum, though.

Division is not hard to see right now, I think Rumble exists because of it, and in a strange way if Rumble wins their lawsuit they'll have made themselves redundant. I hope the courts decide one way or the other and resolve this issue for everyone.

[martinibuster]

Free speech is not a tool or right to silence others whom you disagree with.

Well... think that thought all the way to the logical conclusion.

Your statement means that Brett does not have the right to block spammers who post links to pron sites just because he disagrees with that, because the spammers free speech right overrides Brett.

Rumble has the free speech right to block pro-Al Qaeda discussions if they want to. But Al-Qaeda does not have the free speech right to post on Rumble.

In the USA there is no absolute right to free speech.
There is ONLY a right to not have government laws infringe on our speech. <--- that is what is meant by Free Speech in the USA and no more than that.

What Rumble is doing is asking the government to infringe on Google's free speech, which is ironic because that violates the first amendment.

[robzilla]

For most of the Rumble videos I look up on Google I end up on the official Rumble Viral channel on YouTube? I'm confused.

There's some merit to the half of the lawsuit that claims YouTube's monopoly is anti-competitively further cemented through its integration into the Android ecosystem. Not unlike Internet Explorer in Windows. That didn't stop Chrome from taking over, though. But, of course, Rumble is not the Chrome of video platforms; it's merely a YouTube for misinformation, riding the "free speech" wave.

Greenwald's misinformation is that there exist these "long-hidden internal documents on Google's search engine manipulations".

Curious to learn what documents they're going to request, and what proof they have of such "manipulations".

Obviously, whether those allegations end up being backed by sufficient evidence to survive a summary judgment motion, or to warrant presentation to the jury at trial under the Federal Rules of Evidence, is a matter for a later stage of the case.

Indeed.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

What Rumble is doing is asking the government to infringe on Google's free speech

Google isn't saying anything, they make the rules on a platform where users do all the talking. Rumle is asking the courts to protect the users imo.

Your statement means that Brett does not have the right to block spammers who post links to pron sites just because he disagrees with that, because the spammers free speech right overrides Brett.

No, it doesn't mean that. Adult material is not allowed here because of the rules and he should(and does) enforce the rules, of course. People who enjoy legal adult material want to talk about how to block spammers too and, so long as they don't break the rules, they should be welcome too imo.

Make sense? How Youtube has applied their values differs.

To be very clear - harmful, illegal or intolerant content has no place on any platform, we agree on that, but what's happening is that content about controversial things, especially political, is acceptable on Youtube so long as it sides with Youtube's opinions and "values". To someone who disagrees, that content is hateful and divisive. Demonitizing or deplatforming them should they try to argue their opinion when the topic is allowed but the opinion is not was always going to cause problems, imo.

I hope the matter is resolved in court once and for all. I'm surprised Rumble took Youtube to court, as I said I think a Rumble win wll mean Rumble slows or reverses their own growth rate as people won't be forced off the Youtube platform just for having a different opinion. If you want to discuss my personal views on this topic further I am willing but please take it to sticky, I've said all I care to publicly on this topic.

[Brett_Tabke]

>Rumble is asking the courts to protect the users imo.

It is exactly like asking me not to promote Pubcon here on WebmasterWorld. Or to sanction us when we point out that SMX conference and Searchenginebland is owned by a Googler (Danny Sullivan).

[martinibuster]

but what's happening is that content about controversial things, especially political, is acceptable on Youtube so long as it sides with Youtube's opinions and "values".

That actually is misinformation. The overwhelming majority of fake news/misinformation and disinformation is shared and consumed by conservatives. So if it seems like the majority of misinformation being removed is conservative, that's because the overwhelming majority of misinformation is conservative and not not liberal. These are facts, proven by multiple research studies.

For example, there is no liberal movement that is equal than the far right lunacy of QAnon. Not only are many conservatives literally not living in reality there are more of them living in alternative realities, this is a fact, not an opinion.

Research into misinformation consistently shows that conservatives are more likely to share misinformation and disinformation than liberals.
Gangs from eastern European countries, Vietnam and India manufacture conservative misinformation because it gets more engagement than liberal misinformation.

Look for research studies into misinformation and you'll see that conservatives don't care about objectivity and are more likely to produce and propagate fake news.
Here's an example from one study:

"We observed a marked lopsidedness in the political slant of the shared fake news articles: A majority came from pro-Republican outlets and were shared by people who identified as Republicans.

For users connected mostly to Democrats, a tiny fraction of their daily news diet appears to come from fake news sources. By contrast, among users mostly following pro-Republican accounts the fake-to-mainstream news ratio is substantially higher on average.

...Political partisanship—and especially self-reported animosity towards the opposing party—strongly predicted fake news sharing.

This relationship was strongest among Republicans with disdain for Democrats, who were much more willing to share pro-Republican fake news stories."

[brookings.edu...]

www.brookings.edu How partisan polarization drives the spread of fake news Political polarization drives the spread of fabricated news items far more so than ignorance, complicating the search for policy solutions to the phenomenon of “fake news.”

[tangor]

That actually is misinformation. The overwhelming majority of fake news/misinformation and disinformation is shared and consumed by conservatives.

I thought we routinely avoided "politics"! For every "multiple research studies", there are that many with opposing results. In all, it becomes a zero sum game and interferes with web mastering as a trade.

What's different with Rumble is the potential to peek inside the black box of g to see how they actually do things ... and go from there.

[martinibuster]

I thought we routinely avoided "politics"!

Truth and facts are not politics. I posted a citation. I can post a lot more because it's objective truth. Studies consistently show that conservatives overwhelmingly share and believe misinformation.

The only reason I'm posting this is because someone posted a misinformed opinion that YouTube prefers picking on conservative opinions. I showed, with a citation, that the reason why more conservative misinformation is removed is because the overwhelming majority of it is conservative.

Here's another study published on the MIT Technology Review site. [technologyreview.com]

US conservatives spread tweets by Russian trolls over 30 times more often than liberals
They say that the most retweets of Russian misinformation came from two US states: Tennessee and Texas. They also conclude that conservatives were significantly more likely than liberals to retweet the messages.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

I posted a citation. I can post a lot more because it's objective truth. Studies consistently show that conservatives overwhelmingly share and believe misinformation.The only reason I'm posting this is because someone posted a misinformed opinion...

Yes, I posted an opinion in a forum. It's shared by a lot of people and is at the core of the lawsuit between Youtube and Rumble?!?

You don't seem to disagree that many people have been deplatformed, Rumble's userbase is exploding with them right now, but you are explaining why conservatives deserve it? Sharing an opinion, misinformed or not, shouldn't be enough to be deplatformed.

I don't know what to make of the fact you went straight for QAnon type stuff so I'm not responding to it..

[tangor]

POLARIZATION goes both ways. :)

I'm more interested in how the Rumble lawsuit and discovery go. We MIGHT get some insight on how g operates! That would be a win-win for all!

[BigKat]

I can post a lot more because it's objective truth.

Objectivity tends to get lost when the views of others are immediately dismissed without consideration. For example, one side of the political aisle would say two consecutive quarters of negative GDP meets the definition of a recession while the other says it doesn't. As it pertains to business, including consumer search behavior, our own data suggests consumer spending changed to a recessionary environment well before what both sides claim meets the criteria for a recession. Meaning both sides are wrong from our perspective of actual consumer behavior. As a parent of a daughter who competes in a sport nationally, how gender based sports are being redefined is quite concerning. Such changes are sold with the intent be more gender inclusive when it places the very females in the "girls sport" they compete in at a major disadvantage. With that in mind, I agree with @tangor in that discussing politics is best avoided because both sides can't be objective and tend to block out the facts that do not support their preconceived views.

As it pertains to the Rumble lawsuit, I believe they have legitimate concerns though I believe they should instead be suing the FTC/DOJ antitrust division to do their jobs. Those of us that have been online for a while remember the days when Vimeo videos were often displayed in Google's search queries. It didn't take long for Vimeo vids to disappear after Google purchased YouTube. A similar situation occurred in the real estate auction industry. After Google invested $100 million into a real estate auction website, that website started ranking above the very sheriff auction websites they were pulling data from. Measuring how Google has abused their dominance can't be looked at over a period of a few months or even a year or two. Google has and continues to make subtle changes, which remain under the radar and don't cause much of a stir, to promote their own interests. In my opinion, whether Google's free speech rights outweigh their ability/actions to silence others would have been better addressed by regulators and the politicians who allegedly represent the people.

Think about this - we all probably know people who use a Google Chromebook to connect to the internet with Google Fiber. Then they browse websites, which have Google ads/analytics, etc. code embedded in them, using the Chrome web browser. Google's search engine is simply one room inside the wall Google has created around consumers.

[Brett_Tabke]

Lets move on - it's gotten a bit too heated politically to continue this thread.