Presumably because telling half of your users to fuck off is a terrible financial decision?
Here executives were crying on camera saying "we lost". I don't think many believe they are then going to turn around wipe their tears, sit down at their desks and be impartial when deciding which news to filter, which videos to demonetize, which charities to support. I don't think they will be, and they shouldn't. They should be more brave and stand up for what they believe. It will make them seem more honest and they might even recover some of the PR image they lost recently.
Google/etc have policies on hate speech and false content, and for some reason banning those things is now considered a political bias.
Fact: You will find such people subjected to strikes and bans on YouTube and Twitter who are simply ideologically opposed to the goals of Intersectionality and Feminism on the basis of philosophy rooted in "smaller government."
Really? I was parodying your lack of logic. Why is it that you can't enforce child pornography, but still refrain from other kinds of government infringement. Please explain the reasons you so carefully gave above before you started to poison the well by invoking child porn. Provide quotes. Or is there a hole in your logic there?
And giving counter-examples is not poisoning the well, unless you personally have a history with violating child pornography laws that I'm not aware of. Then that would be discrediting you as a pedophile, not your argument, and in which case I apologize for picking such a touchy counter-example for you.
I was parodying you with a reference to "lobster" logic.
And giving counter-examples is not poisoning the well, unless you personally have a history with violating child pornography laws that I'm not aware of.
I'm going to be charitable and think you're trolling here, not hilariously lacking self-awareness.
I've heard conservatives say they're uncomfortable working there because "everyone" is liberal, but they also live in San Francisco California, where "everyone" is liberal, so that's hardly Google's fault.
For example: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/03/youtu...
I have yet to see evidence of actual enforced liberal bias by youtube.
It depends on who you watch. If you get away from the left-leaning bubble on YouTube, it's rampant. Phillip DeFranco often gets demonetized, often because he gets lurid, but at times it's apparently because he's "too neutral" from a Far Left point of view. Dave Rubin gets demonetized all the time, though he almost never covers anything lurid, and his entire channel basically consists of people talking about things. Computing Forever gets demonetized all of the time, though he's basically just a talking head coming from a conservative point of view. Independent Man: same.
Can you point me to a few left-leaning spaces on YouTube that do not get demonetized? I follow a few leftist YouTubers, and all have them have several demonetized videos.
I've never seen evidence that Phillip DeFranco or Dave Rubin got demonetized specifically because of the political leaning of their video.
Alex Jones got demonetized because he claimed shooting victims were crisis actors, which is an acceptable form of "bias" to me. I actually blame his blow-up as the origin of the "Youtube censors conservatives" meme.
I think this polygon article does a generally fair analysis: https://www.polygon.com/2018/3/9/17101166/youtube-purge-robe... though it doens't talk about Rubin or DeFranco.
The most thrown around quote is this:
"As we work to hire rapidly and ramp up our policy enforcement teams throughout 2018, newer members may misapply some of our policies resulting in mistaken removals,"
Which, yea, hire a bunch of moderators out of San Francisco (I assume) and that can happen. But, the company rectified the issue. The fact that videos lost out on money is due to YouTube's dumb method of content moderation (demonetization immediately and invalidating all those views), not because the company itself has a bias. If the company had a bias, it would not train employees to not remove pro-gun videos merely for being pro-gun, or reinstate banned pro-gun videos.
But, you seem to have the greatest handle on this - do you have any articles or analyses across multiple conservative accounts facing demonetization on a regular basis? That kind of evidence would indicate a trend and would finally fulfill my desire for actual evidence of anti-conservative bias by Google.
Polygon is thoroughly biased and intellectually dishonest.
"As we work to hire rapidly and ramp up our policy enforcement teams throughout 2018, newer members may misapply some of our policies resulting in mistaken removals,"
Which, yea, hire a bunch of moderators out of San Francisco (I assume) and that can happen. But, the company rectified the issue.
The issue isn't rectified. Basically, those ideologues are just being sneakier.
This seems to be to be ad hominem fallacy. As you haven't successfully targeted individual points of the article, an outside observer would (so far) correctly surmise my argument to be the stronger one. I welcome you to challenge me on this.
>Basically, those ideologues are just being sneakier.
Are they being so sneaky we can't even tell they're doing it? Well then how do you know they're doing it!
I'm going by their track record.
As GOP Chairman Rich Bond said,"There is some strategy to it [bashing the 'liberal' media...] If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one."
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/16/books/chapters/what-liber...
Enforcement in Silicon Valley tends to let bad actors from the left have lots of leeway while immediately censoring or disciplining for expressing mainstream conservative views.
What examples are there of a company in silicon valley censoring or disciplining conservative employees for conservative views?
Oh, the Google thing. That's easy to sum up in my opinion. From his tldr:
>Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
He failed to demonstrate a difference in traits between men and women correlating to engineering interest and ability. Therefore, equal representation is fair. Therefore, it is an attack on an underrepresented gender to argue otherwise.
If he wants to go and research whether or not there are actual trait differences he's more than welcome to, but he shouldn't be surprised if Google doesn't want to fund that effort.
By the way, it seems you're suggesting "belief that women are biologically predisposed to not be interested in / good at engineering" is a conservative value. I'd agree that it's a value many people that are conservatives hold, but I also know many fiscal conservatives who'd be quite insulted by this conflation.
Brendan Eich opposed a bill giving equal rights to a certain group of humans based on born traits. Is "not wanting to give equal rights to a certain group of humans" a conservative value? That's a shame, because that kind of thing is typically illegal at the Constitutional level. If someone feels bad that they argue that gays shouldn't have equal rights, and then tbeh get fired over it, I have about as much sympathy for that person as I do for a racist.
In any case, racism, sexism, hate against gays are not political opinions, and shouldn't be protected.
For the CNN video, which was most interesting as I haven't seen it before, so thank you for turning it up:
The first guy says "if I suggest we have more border security am I gonna get fired?" I'm not allowed to talk about politics at work, why should he? If there's an environment he's in where people are talking about this stuff, and he doesn't get to, that's definitely an issue! Same for maga hat guy.
If someone holds unpopular opinions and is getting pushback about it, that's life in the big city. Every big city, actually. They're all full of liberals. I've yet to hear of people suffering actual consequences for expressing non-hateful aspects of their personal philosophy.
Tldr I don't care that sexists, racists, or homophobes get fired for their beliefs. I don't care that a maga hat guy can't wear his hat to work because I can't put a Bernie sticker on my laptop and fair's fair. If a trump supporter doesn't have any friends in San Francisco, I am unsympathetic. If they get fired over it, though, I will be mad.
That's the part that confuses me. Why not embrace the bias. Those who think that Google is biased are not going to be convinced by the a PR statement saying "we are impartial, etc". They've already made up their mind.
It's like with the leaked video we discussed recently. Was anyone surprised by the reaction? Not me, it was exactly what I expected. But their PR response to the leak is what bothered me:
> Nothing was said at that meeting, or any other meeting, to suggest that any political bias ever influences the way we build or operate our products.
Why not just be brave and come out and say "we support these values and not those values, we are not a neutral platform, please move on to another service if you don't agree".