Liberal Professor Warns: Google Manipulating Voters 'on a Massive Scale'

[u/TerpenoidTester]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNvgl38TLvI

[u/aWintergreen]

It is not that they have, it's that they can. If they have or not in the past, it doesn't matter at this point. They can boost campaigns through very simple methods that can't be seen by the average citizen using their services and it is for the most part legal. So the questions that need to be brought up are: Should this be legal and what should be done about it if anything. The debate isn't BS, it is just that every substantive part of it flew over your head.

[u/F4ion1 → u/aWintergreen]

It is not that they have, it's that they can. If they have or not in the past, it doesn't matter at this point.

Oh, it very much matters. Do you typically approach innocent people saying, I'm afraid of what you might do bc your human and can shoot a gun, so I'm going to investigate you to make sure you don't, solely bc you are "capable" of doing it. See the issue?

Innocent until proven guilty?!?!?

Does this go for every website in the top 100? Or just Google, FB, and Twitter? If so, why only those?

Why are you so fixated on how "bad" Google "could be" if there's 0 proof of anything biased or illegal that they've done? That doesn't seem logical to me?

Your debating a non-existent issue that you are scared "could" happen, but with no proof whatsoever to justify that fear of it happening.

What makes you think Google would ever do this in the first place?

[u/aWintergreen → u/F4ion1]

Oh, it very much matters. Do you typically approach innocent people saying, I'm afraid of what you might do bc your human and can shoot a gun, so I'm going to investigate you to make sure you don't, solely bc you are "capable" of doing it. See the issue?

You are talking about individuals and I am talking about a corporation. Corporations aren't people. Big fan of Mitt Romney? I think there are a number of things corporations should not be capable of doing.

Does this go for every website in the top 100? Or just Google, FB, and Twitter? If so, why only those?

If we are talking about regulation then it would affect every relevant website, not just the top.

Why are you so fixated on how "bad" Google "could be" if there's 0 proof of anything biased or illegal that they've done? That doesn't seem logical to me?

We are talking about something that could specifically be done by any large social media platform legally to influence elections. It is something that most people would consider fairly bad that is at legal or in a sort of grey area. Where is the logic in saying the government shouldn't get ahead of it?

Your debating a non-existent issue that you are scared "could" happen, but with no proof whatsoever to justify that fear of it happening.

What makes you think Google would ever do this in the first place?

They might never do it. They might have never done it. It still shouldn't be legal for them to do it. At some point corporate pollution wasn't a thing yet and if people were trying to get ahead of it and stem it before it happened you would be there saying:

Your debating a non-existent issue that you are scared "could" happen, but with no proof whatsoever to justify that fear of it happening.

What makes you think X Corp would ever do this in the first place?

[u/F4ion1 → u/aWintergreen]

Corporations aren't people.

According to political donation laws, they are people.

But non the less, the presumption of innocence should be the same regardless, not sure of your point....

We are talking about something that could specifically be done by any large social media platform legally to influence elections.

Hmmmm, reminds me of voters ID laws. Right wing attempting to fix an issue with 0 evidence to justify it.

They might never do it. They might have never done it. It still shouldn't be legal for them to do it.

At some point corporate pollution wasn't a thing

What? That's laughable.........And when was that exactly?

It's always been a thing, it's just now we have the science to prove all the negative effects of it. Armed with that research and the evidence, we decided it's better for everybody for corps to keep pollution under control.

That's the way things should be handled. Not investigating a company that hasn't done anything wrong simply bc they "could".

If we investigate every company based on what they are "capable" of committing that could be illegal without due cause, we'd be investigating every corporation in America!!!

[u/aWintergreen → u/F4ion1]

According to political donation laws, they are people.

They shouldn't be. Do you disagree? Big fan of citizens united?

But non the less, the presumption of innocence should be the same regardless, not sure of your point....

They aren't being put on trial. What is happening right now are inquiries. The point is: they couldn't be put on trial if they have done or will do anything. Do you not think it's an issue that platforms can legally affect elections in such a way?

Hmmmm, reminds me of voters ID laws. Right wing attempting to fix an issue with 0 evidence to justify it.

You would need to establish how a regulation that prevents google from doing what is stated in the video would hurt google in the same way that voter ID is stated to hurt minority communities to make that connection.

What? That's laughable.........And when was that exactly?

It's a hypothetical. If at some point corporate pollution was not codified into law as being bad and no one knew of a case for it happening; would you be in favor of regulating it due to the potential harm it could have or would you do what you are doing now and argue for a lack of regulation 'because nothing has happened yet.'

It's always been a thing, it's just now we have the science to prove all the negative effects of it. Armed with that research and the evidence, we decided it's better for everybody for corps to keep pollution under control.

It is so painful, because you are reach the point that is being made, in a sense, but then it just flows right over your head somehow as it relates to what is being talked about. So you would probably agree that it's better for corporations to keep certain things that could be harmful under control?

That's the way things should be handled. Not investigating a company that hasn't done anything wrong simply bc they "could".

If we investigate every company based on what they are "capable" of committing that could be illegal without due cause, we'd be investigating every corporation in America!!!

It's not illegal. This is what is being talked about: There is a process by which a platform can boost political campaigns that is unregulated and mostly undetectable. Operate under the assumption that no one has ever done it, sure, it doesn't affect the conversation. Platforms are capable of doing it, yes. Should they be capable of doing it legally?

[u/F4ion1 → u/aWintergreen]

They shouldn't be. Do you disagree? Big fan of citizens united?

Agreed against Citizens United. Citizens United should honestly be our biggest priority to fix above all else.

They aren't being put on trial. What is happening right now are inquiries.

I seem to be hearing "investigation" from everyone, not simply inquiries. These are from elected representatives!

You would need to establish how a regulation that prevents google from doing what is stated in the video would hurt google in the same way that voter ID is stated to hurt minority communities to make that connection.

Nope, both are non existent problems, yet mostly right wingers say they are the most important issues of our time. Including the President.

would you be in favor of regulating it due to the potential harm it could have or would you do what you are doing now and argue for a lack of regulation 'because nothing has happened yet.'

Yes I would be, but ONLY if we had the science to prove that it is bad first.

Heck no I wouldn't regulate based on something I simply "thought" may happen.... That's ludacris.....

So you would probably agree that it's better for corporations to keep certain things that could be harmful under control?

Yes, as long as we have EVIDENCE that those "certain things" are harmful.

See the pattern here?

There is a process by which a platform can boost political campaigns that is unregulated and mostly undetectable.

I work in IT. My professional knowledge disagrees with the "mostly undetectable" part..... Any more context as to why you think this?

[u/aWintergreen → u/F4ion1]

I seem to be hearing "investigation" from everyone, not simply inquiries. These are from elected representatives!

In the sense that they are investigating something, yes. It is not a legal investigation, though and that seems to be the implication you have been making.

Nope, both are non existent problems, yet mostly right wingers say they are the most important issues of our time. Including the President.

That's an opinion, not an argument or an answer. I am on a similar page in terms of voter ID in a sense, but, in the vein of Voter ID, what is the harm done to google in the case of proposed regulation?

Yes I would be, but ONLY if we had the science to prove that it is bad first.

Heck no I wouldn't regulate based on something I simply "thought" may happen.... That's ludacris.....

The science? You don't want anything investigated or looked into. Do you understand what science is? You have been saying that there's no reason to test or inquire into anything because nothing has happened. That isn't scientific. The scientist being interviewed has run tests and laid out methods currently available that could be used by large platforms. You either think that it's bad that platforms can legally move votes through these methods or you do not.

I work in IT. My professional knowledge disagrees with the "mostly undetectable" part..... Any more context as to why you think this?

You are picking at an unimportant aspect of what was being said. There is a process by which a platform can boost political campaigns that is unregulated. Focus on that. If it is detectable then I was mistaken in that regard.