It looks like the ex-DDG employee got the details wrong, and read the slides backwards.

  • boff@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    In order to make a claim like that you need two different evidences: one showing that they did remove content critical of the US and one showing that they removed it because they intended to use the removal to make more money

    • gr522x@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is the first you’ve heard about Google/Youtube censoring people or altering search queries? It must have been a decade ago when they removed Kodi from autocomplete because “it was used by pirates.” Even when I disagree with the people they remove, which is most of the time, I am still uncomfortable with a for profit corporation like Alphabet Inc having that much power to decide what people can and cannot see in addition to manipulating search results.

      Nearly every content creator I follow talks about not being about to talk about certain issues for fear of being canceled. That’s censorship, maybe not Chinese style putting you in jail, but it’s still corporate censorship. Google has plenty of defense contracts, as well as contracts with other government agencies. Their previous CEO now leads the Defense Advanced Research Agency (DARPA) and they work with the defense department on AI and robotics.

      A company as untrustworthy and clandestine as Google will make it difficult to connect some dots, but corporation are legally structured to always act in accordance with shareholder interest and Google legally has the right to remove whatever content it wants as a private company. Of course they remove, alter or censor results and content in order to increase profits, their CEO is legally required to act in this way to fulfill the mandate of their position.

      • boff@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve certainly seen and heard of Google modifying results or puting punishments on users because they broach topics that violate their terms of service.

        I will absolutely agree that the rules of their ToS are heavily determined by the desires of advertisers and written laws.

        But just because they may restrict the content based off of advertiser’s wishes or because they are legally required to do so doesn’t mean that Google is in bed with the government and willing to do anything to prop up the government’s power so they can keep making money from them.

        That’s a really big and important jump you can’t just hand wave away just because a company as large as Google works with the government on some things. That’s just conspiracy theory and detracts from the very real, evidence based criticisms we can and should be focusing on.