Uh, what commentary, specifically? Everything seems to be hanging on the single phrase "preventing the next Trump situation", which of course we don't have the rest of the conversation to know what that's referring to.
Could just be the whole fake news/algorithmic gaming situation in the election talked about conversationally by someone who obviously didn't vote for Trump? Seems like much less of a stretch than secret plans to interfere in elections, especially considering all the other "evidence".
Everything else seems like it's talked about here all the time. Bias in ML, prioritization of news sources, re-clustering youtube recommendations, etc. There's literally nothing here they haven't outright said that they're doing, and sometimes even published papers on.
> 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
Google shouldn't be speaking in such a cavalier fashion about Trump. The exec didn't say "the fake news situation" she said "the Trump situation" and in google's position combined with the context of today's political environment it is unacceptable to speak in a fashion that suggests a specific candidate is a problem to be solved. Personally, I regard Trump as a criminal who deserves to be impeached and jailed, but google shouldn't be speaking in a manner that suggests they are laboring with intent to stifle Trump.
I didn't say you said that, I was referring to the site's accusations as they try to drum up a narrative.
> Google shouldn't be speaking in such a cavalier fashion about Trump
Well Google didn't, this person did in a private conversation, and as long as we're being precise, she didn't refer to Trump, she referred to companies being "charged with preventing the next Trump situation".
> it is unacceptable to speak in a fashion that suggests a specific candidate is a problem to be solved
I mean you're saying that devoid of context, a bad interpretation is just as likely as a good interpretation, which is at least "embarrassing and disgraceful" on her part. Which is the whole issue with project veritas and context, isn't it?
We don't actually know what she was referring to, but I'll refer you back to your own "Project veritas has repeatedly shown itself to be untrustworthy" comment for where we shouldn't be putting the benefit of the doubt.
And again, that ambiguous clause said by someone in casual conversation is all that's going on here. There's nothing else revealed in this "case".
Google isn't. A loose private conversation involves context clues. "The Trump Situation" clearly refers to content manipulation not "the election of Trump".
Perhaps all Googlers should forever speak in formally verifiable language to avoid any ambiguity lest their words be weaponized.
In all seriousness though, this isn't a helpful comment. The comment you're replying to makes it abundantly clear that Project Veritas should be taken with a yuge grain of salt. An explanation of your own position is a much better discussion that mocking the position with which you disagree.
That said, I don't think "taken with a grain of salt" takes it nearly far enough. Project Veritas is not an unreliable news source. It is a propaganda agency led by criminals. I don't know of a single completely true news story ever produced by them.
Beginning an argument with the antecedent "If Project Veritas is telling the truth about this" brings us into the realm of fun and fancy. If someone said "If unicorns are real and produce large quantities of greenhouse gases, then man man may not be responsible for climate change," it'd be a reasonable logical statement, but it's still not useful in a serious discussion about anything.
It's infamous for trying to sting the Washington Post with false rape allegations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe#Failed_attempt...
Project Veritas is the name of the organization run by this guy: James O'Keefe. His modus operadi is to set up some sort of meeting with a liberal target under false pretenses, secretly record video, and then edit the video as much as possible to make them look bad. He made a name for himself doing this to ACORN back in 2009 (which successfully destroyed ACORN but also led to O'Keefe later paying the poor defamed ACORN worker $100,000).
When I say "criminals," I mean he and his employees pled guilty to disguising themselves as telephone workers and sneaking into the office of a U.S. Senator. https://web.archive.org/web/20100531174024/http://neworleans...
Examples of his recent work include having his employee try to convince the Washington Post that Roy Moore raped her, for the purpose of discrediting the Washington Post's other stories about Roy Moore.
They've been front page news multiple times for doctoring videos, lying, etc. The acorn "sting" and WaPo incident are probably their greatest hits.