Mr. Google Goes to Washington

That’s how editor, Sam Thielman, is describing Congress at NBC News after watching the House Judiciary Committee grilling Google CEO, Sundar Pichai, and questioning him about who was responsible for the media bias against conservatives on the Internet. On Tuesday, Republican ignorance was front and center by virtue of the fact that they head the committee and they are calling the shots. The Democratic brain-trust will be on display in January 2019, if this committee reforms.

The technical illiteracy in both parties is a danger to the nation. Their inquiry strategy is reminiscent a blindfolded man with a long stick trying to land a blow on a pinata that he cannot see. The current Congress simply does not fully grasp the technology enough to see where it is headed in order to ask a competent question. The spectacle is at once humorous and terrifying. Any attempt to regulate or legislate the technologies involved is beyond their comprehension. They are clearly unable to judge the meaning and proper context of the information they were handed by their "advisors" in preparation for this hearing.

~Google-CEO-Congress.jpg
Google CEO Sundar Pichai had to explain to Congress why Googling the word "idiot" brings back a picture of President Trump.

That is the dilemma we face going in to the technology revolution. The generation of the current power legislators is too old. The world they know is ending. Their brains are neither trained nor experienced in the new technologies that have ascended. They cannot really grasp the future; nor can they fully grasp what is happening around them. And this is the moment when we absolutely must get it right to protect the People.

Thielman, who calls the ordeal “embarrassing” says that the Google CEO should have been questioned by more intelligent and knowledgeable lawmakers than the House Republicans. He describes how he reacted to the session:

Tuesday’s interrogation of Google CEO Sundar Pichai by the House Judiciary was a terrific use of a hugely powerful public forum in the world’s foremost democracy — at least, it was if you’ve always wanted to ask the CEO of Google, for example, how to get the crown prince of Nigeria to pay up after giving him your checking account routing number.

Here are a few of the low points that Republicans reached before the threats began in earnest:

Representatives like Steve King R-Iowa, and Ted Poe, R-Texas, blasted Pichai for problems they had with iPhones (which, as Pichai observed to King, Google does not manufacture).

Florida’s John Rutherford asked Pichai to send him “a printout” of the data Google had collected on him.

Steve Chabot, R-Ohio complained that, “I googled American Healthcare Act [intended to repeal Obamacare] and virtually every article was an attack on our bill!” Google is very biased.

Lamar Smith of Texas, displayed a chart [authored by anti-vaxxer and Benghazi conspiracist Sharyl Attkisson] which he pronounced “irrefutable” evidence of a biased search algorithm that prevents conservatives from reaching the number of people Smith felt they ought to reach.

In general, Republicans wanted to know why Google wasn't doing more to protect them from negative search results and to deliver more positive opinions when people use Google’s search product to learn about them and their legislation. This, they say, is bias against conservatives.

It comes as no surprise that Republicans at the hearings hardly noticed the major issues going into the 21st century, like Google's near-monopolistic power over American discourse. The lawmakers seemed completely uninterested in the platforms and protocols that could be altered to make Google more benign and fair. They are blissfully unaware that they appear to be too lazy to educate themselves about the impact an overly powerful information monopoly will have on society. It became increasingly obvious that they’d rather maintain a malevolent system that can come down like a fist to protect their particular interests from non-conformists. The Republicans saved their energy for the threats they made to Google if it does not accede to their political demands:

Rep. Steve King demanded a list of the 1,000 people — Pichai’s estimate — who work on Google’s search algorithm (which is designed to analyze search terms in several different kinds of context, including, in most cases, its often scarily-accurate perception of what the user is looking for based on past behavior across Google’s products) to enable Republicans to police those engineers’ “political bias” until it better pleased him. “Look at their social media, and if that doesn't solve this problem, the next step is to publish the algorithms,” he told Pichai. “If that doesn't happen, the next step is amendments to section 230” — the law that absolves platforms of responsibility for the material published through their systems — ”and beyond that is a Teddy Roosevelt step,” a reference to trust-busting.

This would pain King considerably, he said — “I don’t want to regulate anything” — but a public discourse in which he is criticized with impunity in public is, he implied, simply too high a price for the country to pay.

Don’t expect any better from the Democrats. They complained at every opportunity that Google was not doing enough to stop the Russians from meddling in their elections.

This is one of those issues that demonstrates how both Political Parties in America are worthless. The party leaders have become so corrupted and isolated that Google's alarming transformation has gone right over their heads. In the past 18 months — in reaction to a dangerously ignorant Congress that is unfit to analyze the technology revolution — Google has assumed the role of the petite bourgeois dictator who decides which information Americans may access effortlessly, and which information is deeply buried or never surfaces at all. They and their Silicon Valley cohort are increasingly acting as judge and jury, deciding which Americans are allowed to have a voice on the Internet, and which Americans will be denied services based on their beliefs and their personal data.

Along with Google, tech giants like Facebook and Twitter quickly adapted to the governments' urgent need for years of investigations into an upsetting election. Many of the problems were computer or internet related. There were hacks and data thefts. Bernie Sanders' team was accused of stealing DNC data. Then the DNC locked Bernie's data, causing a campaign crisis. Meanwhile, Democratic voters were purged from voter databases in a number of states, and some states were concerned that their voting machines might be vulnerable to computer tampering. Political operatives like David Brock built temporary Internet rumor mills and smearing factories, polarizing voters. Campaign websites were defaced, personal data was leaked, online communities split apart, and some Internet users found themselves blocked or banned. Even worse, online polling wasn't making much sense at all.

The Silicon Valley CEOs followed a similar strategy when called to Washington. They were respectful and submissive appearing before an agitated Congress, and were willing to accept some blame while they tried to figure out what the lawmakers really wanted. This would be followed by swift and decisive company-wide action back at headquarters. They launched manhunts and raids of their own enormous user bases, with a eye out for Russian themes. Seemingly overnight, they produced tens-of-thousands of "troubling" or "suspicious" accounts they hadn't noticed before.

The solution was multifaceted. They told Congress they've employed an in-house army of twenty-somethings who have been closing thousands upon thousands of accounts that are associated with Russian phone numbers or email addresses. Politically gullible Americans will now have more protection against Russian election meddling or, god forbid, trolls. For good measure, Facebook turned over a group of Russian SEO (search engine optimization) hustlers who are using trendy, clickbait, poster ads to generate US traffic stats for commercial websites out of St. Petersburg. The US audience presumably boosts potential ad revenues. The blame was now pushed way out into an international fuzzy zone.

The Silicon Valley CEOs could see how mediocre the Russian "ads" were. They noticed that those with political messages often targeted both sides of any ideological divide. For example, there were Hillary ads and there were Trump ads, because at some point both were trending. Many of these ads were posted to the Internet after the US elections. The tech contingent could also do the math, they knew that any influence the Russian SEO hustlers might have had on 150 million American voters is infinitesimally tiny. In fact, it is statistically invisible against the trillion dollar backdrop of competing Internet experiences. The solution provided a nice complicated distraction for everyone involved. This, of course, was passed along to Mueller to beef up his Russian motif.

o-hitler.jpg

Make no mistake, however: the Silicon Valley intelligensia knows that the DNC hacking story is stupid. They are quite familiar with the investigation and analysis done by VIPS, the elite cadre of celebrated computer scientists (indeed, friends and colleagues). Without evidence, VIPS forensics flatten and debunk this idiocy. But none of this matters.

The Tech Giants understand the greater game, for they, themselves, are defense contractors. Their apparent corroboration of the sketchy Russian narrative provides a compromised Congress with a story that can be used to move the nation onto a war footing. In DC, the number one priority is to satisfy the military industrialists and elite financiers with the considerable guaranteed profits that are generated by war and global hegemony. In turn, the politicians who help divert government revenues into MIC pockets will enjoy generously funded re-election campaigns.

I can only begin to imagine the contempt and disgust the Silicon Valley leaders must feel toward the ignorant, grand-standing politicians they are servicing with this Potempkin Village facade. Of course, I could be projecting here. The big tech giants never really had a choice, did they? Their lives are an open book to the Intelligence Community. Every word they utter is recorded, every thought they express is analyzed. What happened to that Chinese CFO in Canada could happen to any CEO.

For better or worse, Google and the Tech Giants have made their deal with the devil. They will sustain the big lie of the Russia Hoax in the process, which provides cover for greater sins and conspiracies. But now, Google has been informed that it must also “deliver” much more favorable search results for conservative causes, and more positive results when Members of Congress are searched. More positive search results for conservative policies and proposals. More engineered equivalence. Less negativity and bias. Anything is doable with the right algorithm, no?

I fear all of them have gone too far down this twisted road of lies and greed, and we the People cannot turn them back. Google and the Social Media giants have converged with the US Intelligence Community. This path leads inexorably toward censorship and full spectrum surveillance for all Americans and the silencing of dissent far beyond that envisioned by Orwell.

Is this inevitable? Or can you envision another way into a different future? Perhaps a safer place to weather the descending darkness?

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

Azazello's picture

I haven't watched this yet, it just came up, but it's relevant and I bet it's good.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emxUdrVVR8s width:500 height:300]

up
0 users have voted.

We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.

wendy davis's picture

by Julian Assange, In this extract from his new book When Google Met Wikileaks, WikiLeaks' publisher Julian Assange describes the special relationship between Google, Hillary Clinton and the State Department -- and what that means for the future of the internet’, wikileaks.org

up
0 users have voted.

Jimmy Dore's video is good. You get to see the head of Google telling Congressman Nadler the amount of ads Russia bought on Google to interfere in the 2016 election: $4,700. That's right, about the price of a very used car.

up
0 users have voted.
earthling1's picture

@out of left field
Sam Theilman insists that the "well documented role of Russian meddling in the 2016 election" is legit.
All $4700 worth of meddling.

up
0 users have voted.

Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.

@earthling1 spent $4,800 she woulda won!. Too bad she didn't have the funds.

up
0 users have voted.
edg's picture

@earthling1

I used to spend $90,000 a year on Google ads to generate $450,000 gross revenue for my business. I should have hired Russian hackers. They could have made me a billionaire for under $5,000.

up
0 users have voted.
SnappleBC's picture

@out of left field

I've got 5k burning a hole in my pocket as we speak and I'm eyeing Tulsi for president. Who EVER would've thought we could fix all this crap for 5k? I've got those Russians beat by 6% and honestly, I'd be willing to go 8k (topping the Russian bid for our democracy by a whopping 70%).

Don't tell Vladimir that though. I don't want a bidding war started.

up
0 users have voted.

A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard

Wink's picture

phone if I've moved from this seat over to Sen. so-and-so's seat??"

Is why they don't give a fuck one way or the other about Net Neutrality.
They have no clue what it is.

up
0 users have voted.

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.

@Wink they have another means of controlling us. I mean, in the end that's all they care about.

up
0 users have voted.
mimi's picture

Sure, don't use the internet.
If you can. If you can't you are part of the problem.

up
0 users have voted.
k9disc's picture

up
0 users have voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

Pluto's Republic's picture

@k9disc

They should be public utilities, like all parts of national infrastructure. Regulated for excellence.

Ditto for the cable carriers.

On the other hand, I say break up the media monopolies. And force them to broadcast the news without advertisers. They can make money off the other 23 hours.

up
0 users have voted.

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato

is being used to mask the disingenuousness of the answer. Eg, saying that the iPhone isn't made by Google is a red herring. As powerful as the iPhone might be, the data provided to that iPhone is what is at question. When doing a "google" the iPhone is nothing more than a DT (dumb terminal).

The question is: Does google, whether by intent or accident, return misleading or downright false, information?

The answer I would submit is: Yes. The search algorithm is wrong. To somehow use previous inquiries to affect the response to a current inquiry is a glaring error. Eg, "trending" is given credence. Almost like anti-vaxxing is a good thing because all your social contacts are doing it. Herd mentality.

On a personal note I find the search engines to be one large pain in the behind. Eg, I am trying to monitor the cost of an audio (Sony XAV-AX5000) for my truck. If I search on Sony AX5000 the engine returns a whole bunch of AX500's. A camera. I guess this time of year lots of people are considering the camera as a gift. I found that google also seems to ignore the quote marks these days. And tries so very hard to fix what it thinks is my spelling or logic error.

In any case, I think King's quote above would work better this way:

"...a list of the people who work on Google’s search algorithm (which is designed to analyze search terms in several different kinds of context, including, in most cases, its often scarily-accurate perception of what the user is looking for based on past behavior across Google’s products) to enable oversight of those engineers to discover potential bias so that the information better reflects the raw content. IOW, publish the algorithms. If that doesn't happen, the next step is amendments to section 230 — the law that absolves platforms of responsibility for the material published through their systems — ”and beyond that is a Teddy Roosevelt step,” a reference to trust-busting.

BTW, doesn't google lean toward delivery of data that is more profitable? Afterall, they are in it for the money, are they not?

Which brings me in a round-about way, to the neutrality issue. At what point does the internet become part of the public commons? Have we not reached that point, yet?

Sorry, I'm getting to the point where I have a really hard time with all the BS flying around. Which is worse? An ignorant congresscritter or a profit-seeking CEO? Who ya gonna trust?

up
0 users have voted.

@exindy

Perhaps an IETF RFC dealing with search algorithms might be in order here.

IE, some standards that the industry might define to ensure that no one monopolistic corporation puts its thumb on the scale.

Just a thought.

up
0 users have voted.

Old in and of itself is OK, but too many old people are dinosaurs stuck in a tar pit and happy with it.

Without being arbitrary, how does one take out the trash in Congress? I think the only way is to get rid of the money and officially declare money isn't speech and a corporation is not a person.

up
0 users have voted.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Except what is the past tense? Duckduckwent?

up
0 users have voted.
Lookout's picture

focused on how Facebook has handled his videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UzFTAeEzJ8 (15 min)

Bob Scheer was on Chris' show...Robert Scheer, Editor-in-Chief of Truthdig and author of "They Know Everything About You: How Data-Collecting Corporations and Snooping Government Agencies Are Destroying Democracy” discusses the New MaCartheyism that is underway to silence the left-wing press. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbenNvE9zwc (24 min)

The scariest manipulation involves the corporate government alliance which Bob describes in this 22 min clip with text. https://therealnews.com/stories/is-orwells-big-brother-here-bezos-amazon...

Loved your pic and caption Pluto - "the word idiot brings up a picture of T-rump" Now that sounds appropriate. Thanks for the essay!

up
0 users have voted.

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Pluto's Republic's picture

@Lookout

That info really does expand and enhance this topic. We are already inside the surveillance state. We were inside even before Ed Snowden leaked the NSA's ambitions. I don't think there is any way to claw bsck privacy. We will have to learn to adapt. Perhaps that will spur enlightenment.

up
0 users have voted.

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato

When accusations of Russian meddling through Facebook started up, Facebook scoffed at the accusations as the data they saw was puny. But Warner visits their headquarters in CA, and then shazam, FB is onboard with the conspiracy. And even then, I think the figures they gave were meant to mock the accusations: but the stories did not go into the figures, just that FB found Russians. But they gave in to more and more exaggerations. UK parliament members when holding hearings were not pleased with the numbers they were given, and demanded new ones (or else).

The fight is not over what Google has turned into, but rather a fight to who controls or has greater influence on social media. And this serves the large media companies as they avoid anti-trust laws, break ups, etc. which effect the bottom line.

up
0 users have voted.
divineorder's picture

protect their bidness.

editi

up
0 users have voted.

A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.