It makes it hard to give Google the benefit of the doubt when their stance seems to be "stop talking about it", instead of addressing the content of the video.
They aren't transparent in their decision making processes, and it's beyond obvious that the "Rules" are applied unequally.
Imagine an oil executive saying you can't report their name or what they said in a private conversation because some environmentalist sent them a vicious tweet. This is what you're arguing for.
It's kind of disturbing because there's a clear two tier pattern emerging.
People with tech connections can take down videos that name them, even if the videos are legitimately news worthy.
Meanwhile CNN hunts down and doxes people who post memes without tech companies doing anything.
Viewed through the lens of human power, which is more likely?
“We all got screwed over in 2016, again it wasn’t just us, it was, the people got screwed over, the news media got screwed over, like, everybody got screwed over so we’re rapidly been like, what happened there and how do we prevent it from happening again.”
I think it's clear what she meant, but Google doesn't want to deal with the legal or social ramifications of being politically non-neutral.
> “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.”
She may have "used some imprecise language" but I have no doubt that many Google employees do indeed feel like they should use their company's influence to prevent "the next Trump situation."
Also, there's no way she wrote this on her own. Google's PR machine is very proactive, and the enormous collection of messages she received when she landed undoubtedly included a stern warning not to say anything more in public. She may have written part of this, but at the very least it was a team effort.
It makes no sense to get riled up over numbers that would be rounded to zero.
why dont you watch the leaked video of the meeting right after the election that shows them all being upset and saying it cant happen again. they openly say this in teh company and email about it all the time.
I think delusions like this persist because 1. ppl aren't used to communication on that bureaucratic shorthand. 2. it makes it seem easy like they really nailed someone.
Just split up google at this point...
It is a flow chart btw.
"Training data are collected and classified" -> "Algorithms are programmed" -> "Media are filtered, ranked, aggregated, or generated" -> "People (Like us) are programmed"
Make up your own mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_of_Shirley_Sherrod
Veritas has been caught doing this exact type of numerous times, and why anyone would consider them to be a credible source of information beggers belief. Hell they even refer to themselves as an intelligence agency.
https://theintercept.com/2019/05/03/erik-prince-trump-uae-pr...
The case involved the Texas Health and Human Services Commission decision to terminate the state’s Medicaid provider agreements with PP affiliates across the state, based in large part on those very videos.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed that decision in January of this year, which directly refutes your "hatchet job" claim against the video footage in which Planned Parenthood executives admitted to illegally altering abortion procedures to obtain intact fetuses whose organs could be sold to medical research firms for greater profit, and how they found ways to circumvent the federal ban on partial-birth abortion?
If that is what this reminds you of, well...
[0] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D8GgSTArPinJ6SH8ITRgjkYqNq6...
To those in disbelief, watch it yourself and see if it’s “deceptive editing” (a dog whistle)
All those news sources have come to depend on Google. They hate it, but they can't fight it. News revenue is way down in this Google world, with viewers passing by whenever Google deems it best.
Any news source that opposes Google is at risk of getting blacklisted and they know it. You might find a bit of coverage on sites that are already blacklisted, like Breitbart. Nobody else would dare anger Google.
I'm sure that most news sources would love to see Google get hurt, but going after Google is like going after the king: you'd better not miss.
Fear is a negative emotion, but is quite visible to those who are under it, and they would try to get rid of it.
But the journalists (ok, let's them call so for now) do not seem to be driven by fear. The media owners might be, but the journalists aren't. They have a positive emotion, they want to do thing the way are being done; they seem to be driven by shared ideology of progressive liberalism (see twitter for blue checkmark social bubble). They believe they are doing the right thing, even if it means being silent about some wrongdoing. The end justifies the means, and talking about some issues would be like helping to the enemy. Nobody wants Trump in 2020 again, right?
That's why you are seeing dissent only in media, that are not progressive. And they happen to fall outside main media sources by definition.