Mediaboss Marketing

In a statement before a Senate hearing on October 28, Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Googles parent company Alphabet, admitted that the dominant online search company has censored the World Socialist Web Site.

At the Senate Commerce Committee hearing, when asked by Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah to provide the name of one left-wing high profile person or entity that has been censored by Google, Pichai named the WSWS.

The hearingwhich included testimony from three top tech CEOs--Pichai (Google), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) and Jack Dorsey (Twitter)had been called by the Republican-controlled committee for the purpose of promoting its completely false claim that only right-wing and conservative publishers have been censored by internet and social media corporations in the lead-up to the 2020 elections.

During his allotted time for questioning, Senator Lee asked the three executives, I think the trend is clear that you almost always censormeaning block content, fact check or label content or demonetize websitesof conservative, Republican or pro-life individuals or groups or companies... Can you name for me one high profile person or entity from a liberal ideology who you have censored and what particular action you took?

While both Dorsey and Zuckerberg refused to give namesclaiming they would provide a list at a later datewhen Lee got to Pichai, the Google executive responded that we have moderation policies which we apply equally... We have had compliance issues with the World Socialist Review [sic], which is a left-leaning publication.

Although Pichai used the name World Socialist Review, a print newsletter that ceased publication in 2011, it is clear that he was referring to the World Socialist Web Site. In fact, a Google search for World Socialist Review actually yields the WSWS in its top two results.

Pichai did not explain what he meant by compliance issues, but his response to Senator Lee was absolutely clear. He was saying that Google does in fact take censorship action against left-wing and socialist publishers, and an example is the censorship of the World Socialist Web Site.

The extraordinary admission by Pichai that Google has been suppressing content from the WSWS is a vindication of the campaign launched by the International Committee of the Fourth International against online censorship going back to the spring 2017.

In April 2017, following the implementation by Google of a new search algorithm, the WSWS reported that access to its content and that of other left-wing, anti-war and progressive websites was being heavily censored. In an article published on August 2, the WSWS published data that showed traffic to 13 websites had been reduced by Google between 19 percent and 67 percent. The data showed that the World Socialist Web Site has been the most heavily affected. Its traffic from Google searches has fallen by two thirds.

The WSWS characterized the modification of Googles search algorithm as a corporate-state conspiracy to drastically curtail democratic rights and then called for broad-based collaboration among socialist, left and progressive websites to alert the public and the widest sections of the working class.

The analysis was then followed on August 25, 2017 by an open letter from David North, chairperson of the WSWS International Editorial Board, to the executive leadership of Google and Alphabet demanding a halt to internet censorship. The letter called on Google to stop blacklisting the WSWS and renounce the censorship of all the left-wing, socialist, anti-war and progressive websites that have been affected adversely by your new discriminatory search policies.

The open letter further stated that the censorship of the WSWS reflects the fear that a genuine socialist perspective, if allowed a fair hearing, will find a mass audience in the US and internationally. There is widespread popular opposition to your efforts to suppress freedom of speech and thought.

As part of this campaign, the WSWS circulated an online petition that garnered thousands of signatures from readers in 70 countries and on five continents.

Although Google never officially responded to the open letter, the New York Times published an article on September 26, 2017 by Daisuke Wakabayashi that featured an interview with David North and discussed the campaign by the WSWS. Then, in a follow-up article, the Times attempted to discredit the claims of the WSWS that Google was engaged in censorship.

In November 2019, the Wall Street Journal substantiated the position of the WSWS that Google was manipulating its search algorithm to suppress content from being surfaced by its search engine. The Journal wrote, Despite publicly denying doing so, Google keeps blacklists to remove certain sites or prevent others from surfacing in certain types of results.

On January 20, 2020, the WSWS published an article titled Google suppressing World Socialist Web Site content in its search results for the New York Times 1619 Project. This article showedthrough independent data analysisthat the authoritative and widely read material published by the WSWS on the historical falsification called The 1619 Project was being suppressed in Google search results.

The recent statement by Pichai is the second time he has misnamed the World Socialist Web Site in congressional testimony. In a hearing of the House Committee on the Judiciary on July 29 titled Examining the Dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google, Pichai responded in a similar manner to a question from Republican Congressman Greg Steube.

When Steube claimed that Googles algorithms were exclusively censoring conservative political views online, Pichai said, We do get complaints across the aisle. For example, the World Socialist Review [sic] complained in January of this year that their site wasnt found in Google search results. So, we get complaints, we look into it, but we approach our work in a nonpartisan way, and it is in our long-term incentive to serve users across the country.

Although he did not explain it, the statement by Pichai before the House committee was clearly regarding the WSWS assertion in January that content about The 1619 Project was being suppressed.

This public admission was followed by a second open letter on July 31 from WSWS Editorial Board Chairperson David North to CEO Pichai. The open letter stated: The fact that you referred specifically to the WSWS complaint in your congressional testimony speaks to the seriousness with which the matter was taken. You, the CEO of Googles parent Alphabet, were notified of the complaint. Six months after the article was published, it remained fixed in your memory.

David North then asked, why was the World Socialist Web Site never informed that its claim of suppression was being discussed within Alphabet/Google management, or that an investigation was being conducted into our complaint? Neither Pichai nor anyone else from the management of Google ever responded to this question or the open letter.

It is highly significant thatafter more than three years of stonewalling and refusing to answer any questions or respond to a single demandCEO Pichai has admitted that the technology firm controlling nearly 90 percent of worldwide search traffic has been suppressing WSWS content all along.

Why is the WSWS being censored by Google? Because the WSWS is the only online source of genuine Marxism and socialist internationalism that stands for the political independence of the working class and fights to put an end to the capitalist system on a world scale. As the struggles of the working class intensify amid the crisis sparked by the global pandemic, the recently relaunched WSWS is increasingly becoming the center of socialist political, theoretical and cultural education for masses of workers and young people throughout the globe.

Given the collaboration of Alphabet and Google with the US intelligence state, the statement by Pichai must be understood as a message to the American political establishmentwhich did not question him further on the matterthat the censorship of the WSWS will be continued and intensified in the coming period.

Along with the fight for the freedom of WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange, the demand for an end to online censorship and the defense of freedom of speech on the internet are fundamental democratic rights that must be taken up by the international working class.

More:
Google admits to censoring the World Socialist Web Site - WSWS

The CEOs of Twitter, Facebook and Google are facing a grilling by GOP senators making unfounded allegations that the tech giants show anti-conservative bias. Their focus includes Section 230, a law relating to unfettered internet speech. (Oct. 28) AP Domestic

Facebook and Twitter may not be on the ballot, but they're getting dragged into the presidential election in its final hours.

The recurring theme from President Donald Trump's campaign: Blame Big Tech.

Tuesday, Trumps lawyer Rudy Giuliani gave an interview to Russian state media outlet RT in which he accusedtech companies of being maniacally anti-Trump and censoring information about Hunter Bidens business dealings to tip the election to former Vice President Joe Biden.Giuliani claimed the Democratic Party is under Silicon Valley'sthumb.

They dont do any censorship to favor Trump. The censorship is against Trump and to elect the guy they control, Joe Biden, Giuliani said.

His comments echoed Trump's at a rally on Election Day eve in Fayetteville, North Carolina.AttackingBig Tech, he calledTwitter phony guys who fix the elections.

'Who the hell elected you?'Tech CEOs accused of bias against Trump and conservatives days before election

Conservatives allege election meddling: Trump-led conservatives escalate bias charges against Big Tech beforeSenate showdown

Fueling his ire was the decision by Facebook and Twitter to throttle the spread of the New York Posts coverage of Hunter Bidens business dealings. Trump said Monday that the online platforms promote unflattering media coverage of his administration.

"Its a fix," he said.

President Donald Trump and attorney Rudy Giuliani accuse social media giants of favoring Joe Biden and making decisions out of a long-standing bias against conservatives.(Photo: Carolyn Kaster, AP)

Lask week, Senate Republicans questioned the heads of Facebook, Twitter and Google on how they police content on their platforms, accusing them of politically motivated bias and suppressionand warning them of challenges to decades-old legal protections that shield them from liability for what users post.

Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg, Twitters Jack Dorsey and Googles Sundar Pichai defended their companies' moderation of conservatives posts, including Trump, before the Senate Commerce Committee.

Conservatives have complained for years that social media companies systematically silence the political speech of right-leaning users.

Tech leaders deny any partisanship, saying their policies strike a balance between allowing users to freely express themselves and keeping hate, abuse and misinformation off their platforms.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/11/03/facebook-twitter-trump-giuliani-censorship-bias-biden-election-2020/6149742002/

Here is the original post:
Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani blast Facebook, Twitter over alleged censorship and bias for Joe Biden: 'It's a fix' - USA TODAY

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Twitter tried to subvert the Constitution by using the free market to turn the censoring of conservative thought into a defensible position. And now Americans are using their free-market choices to say goodbye to Twitter.

Thats called tit for tat.

Thats called just due.

Thats called paying the piper.

It was only a matter of time before Americans, en masse, grew weary of the whole social media clampdown on conservative thought. It was turning into quite a cycle: Social media minions censor conservatives followed by public outcry followed by congressional hearing followed by social media executive denials of censorship followed by social media minions censor conservatives followed by public outcry followed by well, the pictures pretty clear.

It was a never-ending circus act, one that always left the American public in the lurch, left to either make the case that government should crack down on private businesses or to accept that conservatives should just suck it up and suffer the censorship. Social medias leftist leaning leaders have been particularly adept at using Americas own freedoms to their particular anti-freedom purposes.

After all, the First Amendment only applies to government, not private businesses. Right?

Yet a private business that receives special shielding from the government, i.e. Section 230, which protects it from being sued for content created by users, ought not hide behind that special protection when its influence and presence grows so big that its become more a publisher, or news outlet, or publisher of news, than a platform that touts its openness to all views, all thoughts, all across the board. Right again?

In other words and this is a compelling argumentyou cant take Section 230 protections and simultaneously edit content as if a publisher.

Not when the content thats being edited is political in tone. Like The New York Posts recent Hunter Biden bombshell. Or the many, many, many whove simply retweeted The Post piece.

Or anyone else whos written critically of Democratic candidates, politicos or the party in general.

And then to not even explain the censorship, but rather send a form letter about violating some standards of community behavior? Tsk-tsk.

The people dont like it. And they start to show their dislike by taking their business elsewhere.

Twitter shares plunge as user growth slows, Fox Business recently reported.

The story goes on to say how Twitter posted decent quarterly revenues, but the expected daily user rate came in flat. Very flat, actually.

Twitter posted much stronger than expected third-quarter results thanks to surging advertiser demand, Fox Business found. [H]owever, profit slipped and daily users came in lower than analysts expected. The San Francisco company earned $28.66 million, or 4 cents per share, in the July-September period.

The earnings is 22% less than a year ago. Some of that can be chalked to COVID-19, of course. But heres the interesting part: Forecasts of daily user figures arent looking so great.

Twitter had 187 million daily users, on average, in the third quarter, but below analysts expectations of 195.6 million, Fox wrote.

So, either Twitter has been busily booting even more conservatives that make the news, or users are abandoning the platform at a high rate.

Smart money is on option two.

Minus the hard left, Americans by and large cherish their freedom of speech. And they dont take kindly to rich, elitist tech giants going to Congress and lying their butts off, pretending as if they dont censor. The who, me? line gets old, but quick.

If Twitters losing its users, that means one thing and one thing for sure: Free speech is seeing a resurgence.

Free speech advocates are looking for a new outlet. Thats not just good for all Americans; thats good for Americas free market, as well.

Read the rest here:
Twitter is losing users, just as censorship fatigue hits hard - Washington Times

As a writer, Im supposed to have a voice. Im expected to be able to articulate my opinions, do so without fear or hesitation or censorship.

In fact, writers are expected to show a mirror to society, by exercising their freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression, which is a sacred tenet in many countries and communities, is considered the cornerstone of democracies; some would even say, modern life.

We must be free to critique, free to express our beliefs, free to be able to vent our anger.

Social media gives each of us that platform. You dont have to be a writer to board the social media train, or express your opinions.

You can log on to any of your media and say exactly what you feel, and depending on the size of your platform, you will be heard.

You will receive reactions: virtual hugs or vitriol, depending on what youre saying, and how many agree or disagree with you.

Many of us do get on this train. Religion, politics, personal feelings and affairs: some of us lead as much of a public life as a movie star or a politician.

Not as many might be interested in our lives, but that does not prevent us from sharing them. Theres a growing trend though, of those who are choosing to switch off social media or, increasingly, self-censor.

Despite being a writer, I find myself guilty of self-censorship, and Im not alone.

You think twice before hitting the Send button. What used to be a privacy concern has today been burdened as well with an inability to say what you feelabout the pandemic, about politics, the economy. All of it has become somewhat personal, because were all in this unnatural survival bunker of a pandemic.

Theres a lot of strife already, stress that wouldnt go away, arguments due to living too close for too long.

Why add to that by stating facts that others would find unpalatable, especially if it doesnt make any difference in their actions?

Those who do not observe safety distancing, and other pandemic precautions might be callous or selfish in your eyes, but you do not mention this behaviour on social media.

You might hold views on religion and politics, but you hold them close to your heart, because you dont want to argue with your friends and relatives.

The differences of opinion are increasingly turning out to be differences in morality, and those can create unsurmountable rifts. So you begin to type in the input or comment box on your social media, but delete it. Observers say that these aborted posts amount to a third of the total number of posts that are actually made.

To keep the peace, youd rather not engage with those who are loud and proud, because lets face it, what would you gain from the interaction?

Raised blood pressure, distraction, ruined peace. That said, self-censorship comes at a price. Censoring yourself, and being unable to be who you are in public affects your mental health, your self-image, and, ironically enough, your relationships.

The next time the urge to self-censor on social media takes you, consider examining the reasons why. It is valid to protect your privacy and your mental space.

And it is normal to engage in a degree of curation in order to present your social-media self. If the urge to censor yourself comes from wanting to avoid arguments, that is also your right.

It is possible, however, to create social media accounts that are unknown to your loved ones, your work, and your professional persona.

The true cost of self-censorship is the lack of diversity of opinionthat is when we are sucked into a tyranny of the vocal minority.

As a friend of mine wisely said, the burdens of religion are those for the religious to bear, and the same can be said of politics. Just because you dont say something does not mean you do not feel them. As a writer, I channel these feelings into my fiction, and would encourage everyone to find an outlet, whether it is enjoying or creating art, or music, or simply soaking in nature where possible.

And remember, you dont have to bear the burden of an unexpressed stanceyou can always find other ways to have your voice heard, be it on social media, or otherwise.

Twitter: @damyantig

More:
The price of self-censorship - The New Indian Express

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey testifies remotely during a Senate Commerce Committee hearing Wednesday about reforms to Section 230, a key legal shield for tech companies. Greg Nash/Pool/Getty Images hide caption

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey testifies remotely during a Senate Commerce Committee hearing Wednesday about reforms to Section 230, a key legal shield for tech companies.

The CEOs of some of the biggest tech platforms defended the way they handle online speech to an audience of skeptical senators, many of whom seemed more interested in scoring political points than engaging with thorny debate over content moderation policies and algorithms.

Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter's Jack Dorsey and Google's Sundar Pichai appeared virtually Wednesday at a hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee that was supposed to focus on a decades-old legal shield insulating tech companies from liability over what users post.

But many Republicans on the committee used the opportunity to berate the executives over suspicions that their companies and employees are biased against conservatives a frequent complaint on the right for which there is no systematic evidence. Several members pressed Dorsey about Twitter's decision later reversed to block links to a controversial New York Post story about Hunter Biden, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's son.

"Mr. Dorsey, who the hell elected you and put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear?" Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas bellowed at Twitter's chief executive in one of the hearing's most theatrical moments.

Dorsey, a yoga devotee who says he tries to meditate every day, quietly responded that users agree to Twitter's terms of service when they sign up and said Twitter did not have the ability to influence elections.

Democrats mainly focused their questions on what steps the platforms are taking to protect from election interference and crack down on hate speech and radicalization as well as how the tech companies have contributed to the downfall of local news media by sapping advertising spending.

Several Democratic members called foul on the timing of the hearing, just six days before the election. "We have to call this hearing what it is, it's a sham," Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii said. "I'm not going to use my time to ask any questions because this is nonsense."

Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut accused his Republican colleagues of wanting to "bully and browbeat these platforms" into favoring President Trump.

Bipartisan agreement that Section 230 should change but not about why or how

All of the companies have changed their policies this year about what posts are allowed about voting and the election. Facebook and Twitter in particular have taken increasingly aggressive action against posts that make false claims about voting or undermine confidence in the electoral process including putting warning labels on some of the president's most inflammatory attacks on voting by mail.

The law in question, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, is under attack from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle but for different reasons.

Republicans say it gives cover for tech platforms to censor conservatives unfairly, including Trump, while Democrats say the companies should have to take more responsibility for the hate speech, false claims and other harmful content that proliferate on their platforms.

"The reality is that people have very different ideas and views about where the lines should be," Zuckerberg told senators. "Democrats often say that we don't remove enough content, and Republicans often say that we remove too much."

Trump says the law should be revoked, and his Justice Department has asked Congress to pass legislation holding platforms more accountable for what their users post.

Biden has also said the law should be revoked. House Democrats have introduced their own bill that would hold tech companies liable if their algorithms amplify or recommend "harmful, radicalizing content that leads to offline violence."

Tech executives say legal shield is essential to promote online speech

On Wednesday, the CEOs told the committee they agreed that the law should be updated to reflect the current state of the world, 24 years after it was first written. But they defended its legal protections and warned that removing it entirely would result in their companies taking a heavier hand with user content.

They noted that Section 230 not only makes them largely immune from liability of what users post but also empowers them to make decisions about what content to remove and what to allow.

Dorsey and Zuckerberg said there should be more "transparency" about the decisions that online platforms make when determining what content can stay up and what they take down.

Dorsey said he agreed with critics that the companies' policies can feel "like a black box" to outsiders.

"Section 230 is the most important law protecting Internet speech, and removing Section 230 will remove speech from the Internet," he said.

Editor's note: Facebook and Google are among NPR's financial supporters.

Originally posted here:
Facebook, Twitter, Google CEOs Defend Themselves From GOP Censorship Accusations - NPR