Disclaimer: I work for Google, but not on Chrome or Search.
There's plenty of worry to go around. I would like to put aside the (very understandable) fear about Google for a second because I think the GP makes a good point.
My parents used to use the open web, but have also more or less exclusively started to use Facebook to "surf the web" and get all of their information. The 2016 election was a joke, my mother would constantly tell me about all these things she'd found out about "on Facebook". She'd click these links and keep getting more and more radical misinformation. I was honestly shocked at what her Newsfeed looks like. The worst thing is she isn't an abnormality, she's fairly typical of her generation.
I'm concerned by _any_ closed platform, especially when there isn't enough competition. I realize that's descriptive of many things my employer builds as well. But please don't discount the dangers of other closed ecosystems, it's a certainly related topic. The web by _anyone_ makes it a poorer place to be and there's attackers on all sides.
Nice of you to speak out. If I were working at Google I'd be more worried about Facebook too. Because your paycheck more or less depends on you being able to tell yourself that you are working for 'the good guys'. But in my book both are equally rotten, it's just that this thread is about Google, not about Facebook and that makes these clear attempts at deflection.
Google does plenty to spread misinformation as well, Youtube is a sewer giving outright conspiracy nutcases a platform, they continuously promote Breitbart, infowars and other despicable websites through Google News (the suggestion alone that I would like to see any of that content is revolting), they try to pretend that they care about end user privacy, including plastering all of Brussels' airport Zaventem full of posters and displays proclaiming that, never saw such a poster outside of that airport, just maybe they figured that's a good investment to reach regulators on the hoof.
Google is a dishonest and manipulative company that tries hard to pretend it is a sheep. But the teeth are clearly visible and those bloody pawprints tell a different story. I for one am not buying the 'Facebook is more evil than Google' line for a second, if only because FB at least stays in its lane, Google is everywhere.
> Youtube is a sewer giving outright conspiracy nutcases a platform, they continuously promote Breitbart, infowars and other despicable websites
Well, glad you're not in charge, then. If these publications really are crackpots then surely people will stop reading them? Freedom of speech and all that.
This has nothing to do with free speech, if you want to make that argument then please at least familiarize yourself with what the term actually means in this context. Google is actively promoting these sites, which has nothing to do with censoring them.
If you really are a Googler - any anonymous coward can say that - you're not doing Google a service.
I advocate for my beliefs on public accounts as well as internally - this account just happened to be what I was logged into is all.
The simple fact is these publications are promoted because they are popular, making no comment on accuracy. A massive corporation, even if I trust them as my employer, should never have such massive influence on our public conversation.
Popularity is a poor metric, but at least it's not censorship. I think even putting the thumb on the scales is dangerous.
Edit: I do see what you're saying, and I'm not advocating for a society where anything can be said without social consequence. I just think it's far too dangerous for FAANG companies to have that power all to themselves. The most well intentioned people can do terrible things...
The power to promote is just as dangerous if not more dangerous than the power to suppress because it is much harder to make a case against it but can have the exact same effect.
Promotion of any content results in the suppression of other content (inventory isn't infinite). If you were in charge of the algorithm, what would you promote? Considering half of America views CNN the same way you view Breitbart, do you consider that to be a despicable source too?
How half of America views something doesn't really matter, what matters is that there is an observable factual difference between Breitbart and CNN. I don't have a dog in the race and that's pretty easy to establish. Or do you really believe that CNN also promotes conspiracy theories and outright nonsense? If so I guess the conversation is over.
> CNN also promotes conspiracy theories and outright nonsense
Yeah, I do. These outlets are all as bad as each other. The only difference is a right-leaning individual is biased in favor of Breitbart propaganda and a left-leaning individual is biased in favor of CNN.
YouTube is as big of a purveyor of misinformation as Facebook. I just spent two hours yesterday dissecting all manner of coronavirus misinformation my mom learned from YouTube. The insidious aspect of it is that she never went looking for that - she started off watching legitimate sources like credible media outlets but autoplay took her further and further down the rabbit hole without even realizing she was no longer watching the same source. Outrageous, deliberately deceptive propaganda has weaponized the platform and Google is making billions shovelling that content to unsuspecting people. Everyone gets paid and society has to deal with the fallout of millions of misinformed citizens during a global pandemic.
Respectfully, there's plenty to fix in your own house and you as a Googler have 1,000 times more of a voice to push for change than the average person.
And it is nearly impossible to report those videos. Twitter is the only company so far that seems to have some kind of working moderation but even they could do much better.
This seems like a weird point when arguing against a closed platform. You are saying that it is hard to report misinformation. If we were using a distributed platform it would be impossible. So in this aspect centralized platforms are superior even if they are closed and not great in an absolute degree.
We could also use a distributed moderator on centralized platforms (in the browser at least, apps are harder) but there seems to be very little interest in doing this.
YouTube is a _much bigger_ purveyor of misinformation than Facebook IMX. When I scroll down my Facebook feed, its automated suggestions are "maybe you might know this friend-of-a-friend" or "maybe you might want to join this group about choral singing". When I watch a YouTube video, the automated "watch next" suggestions are "Watch Jacob Rees-Mogg DESTROY liberals with one sentence!".
There's plenty of worry to go around. I would like to put aside the (very understandable) fear about Google for a second because I think the GP makes a good point.
My parents used to use the open web, but have also more or less exclusively started to use Facebook to "surf the web" and get all of their information. The 2016 election was a joke, my mother would constantly tell me about all these things she'd found out about "on Facebook". She'd click these links and keep getting more and more radical misinformation. I was honestly shocked at what her Newsfeed looks like. The worst thing is she isn't an abnormality, she's fairly typical of her generation.
I'm concerned by _any_ closed platform, especially when there isn't enough competition. I realize that's descriptive of many things my employer builds as well. But please don't discount the dangers of other closed ecosystems, it's a certainly related topic. The web by _anyone_ makes it a poorer place to be and there's attackers on all sides.