Politicians Whining About Censorship Are All Just Trying To Dictate The Terms Of Debate

from the just-knock-it-off-already dept

So, we just had a post mocking the Democrats for whining about Hulu refusing their issue ads, and falsely calling it “censorship.” And now we have Republicans issuing a bullshit blustery threat letter to Google not to limit searches for sketchy fake abortion centers.

If you’re unaware, malicious anti-abortion folks have set up fake abortion centers, which they call “crisis pregnancy centers,” that are masquerading as actual abortion providers, but which are only there to lie to vulnerable patients about their options, and push them to give birth. Last month, Democrats (again, deeply questionably) told Google that it should demote search results pointing to these misleading centers when people are searching for abortions. As I’ve argued for years, politicians have no rights trying to dictate anything about search results or content moderation. Coming from politicians there is always an implied threat that if these search results don’t come out the way the politicians want, they may take action in the form of legislation.

And, now, a bunch of Republican Attorneys General have sent this ridiculous threat letter to Google with the opposite type of threat, saying that they will take action if Google does limit the search results to these centers. The letter is hilarious in that it whines about politicians seeking “to wield Google’s immense market power by pressuring the company to discriminate against pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in Google search results…” when these Republicans are doing the exact same thing just in the other direction.

Unfortunately, several national politicians now seek to wield Google’s immense market power by pressuring the company to discriminate against pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in Google search results, in online advertising, and in its other products, such as Google Maps. As the chief legal officers of our respective States, we the undersigned Attorneys General are extremely troubled by this gallingly un-American political pressure. We wish to make this very clear to Google and the other market participants that it dwarfs: If you fail to resist this political pressure, we will act swiftly to protect American consumers from this dangerous axis of corporate and government power.

Note that the letter from Republicans is much more explicit in the threat (and it’s coming from Attorneys General, so actual law enforcement agents, rather than elected legislature members who have much less power to act on their own).

The letter is chock full of nonsense.

Complying with these demands would constitute a grave assault on the principle of free speech. “Unbiased access to information,” while no longer a component of Google’s corporate creed, is still what Americans expect from your company.

That’s bullshit. It’s a search engine. The entire point is bias. It is literally ranking the search result to try to bring up the most relevant, and that, inherently, means bias. The attacks on free speech are not from Google trying to serve up more relevant search results, but from politicians of both parties sending these competing threat letters to try to pressure Google into modifying search results to get their own preferred search results shown.

This is what people are talking about when they say that all this politician jawboning and grandstanding is “working the refs.” As we noted last year, the bipartisan attacks on the internet are really all about trying to control the flow of information in their favor, and leaning on powerful companies to try to get their own side more prominence.

And, of course, Google itself has contributed to this somewhat. For years it took a completely hands-off approach to directly modifying its search results, noting that the algorithm returned what the algorithm returned. Yet almost exactly a decade ago, we noted that, for the first time, Google was caving to outside pressure to modify its search results when it promised the MPAA that it would start demoting websites based on DMCA notices.

We warned that this would open the floodgates of others pressuring Google to make modifications to demote sites they disliked, but now it’s reaching new and ever more ridiculous levels, with politicians of both major political parties screaming “take it down” from one side and “leave it up” from the other, with both sides threatening to take some form of punitive action if they’re not obeyed.

All of this is dangerous. All of this is government interfering with the 1st Amendment rights of sites to display information, content, and expression how they best see fit. Both the Democrats and Republicans need to stop this ridiculousness. Stop demanding how sites operate.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , , ,
Companies: google

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Politicians Whining About Censorship Are All Just Trying To Dictate The Terms Of Debate”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
27 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Sooo… the only sane option google has is…

I don’t see why you think that. They’re not required to listen to political bluster. An obvious solution for a map provider would be to accurately describe places. A person looking for pregnancy-related services, for example, might appreciate decriptions like:
* provides/discusses abortions without moral judgment
* attempts to discourage abortions, but will respect one’s decision and provide them
* abortions in specific circumstances only
* nothing but talk, run by a religious group
* will turn you over to the cops if you say the wrong thing

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

'Downranking fraud' should not be a political issue

I mean, Google should delist or heavily downrank such sites as they’re the equivalent of a service that claims to offer addiction counseling only to tell anyone who shows up that cigarettes, booze and drugs aren’t that bad and there’s nothing wrong with people enjoying them, but that doesn’t mean either party should be stepping in and applying political pressure either way to force the issue.

Anonymous Coward says:

If you fail to resist this political pressure, we will act swiftly to protect American consumers from this dangerous axis of corporate and government power.

If that’s the choice Google has, it should just agree to both – and do nothing. Both sides will be none the wiser, and Google ‘solved both problems.’

Everybody wins!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Koby (profile) says:

They Dont Trust Their Own Algorithm

It’s a search engine. The entire point is bias. It is literally ranking the search result to try to bring up the most relevant, and that, inherently, means bias.

The point is to rank according to USER preference. Not political party preference, or employee preference. This case is an excellent example of why internet platforms should be subject to common carrier.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Google is being placed between a rock and a hard place, as political opponents claim the right to impose their view of what the want people to do onto them by controlling Google results.

Also, Google is not a common carrier, and further the biases it finds in user searches will always upset some people, and especially those on the authoritarian end of politics.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re:

The point is to rank according to USER preference.

If someone searches for an abortion center, serving up results containing something that is nothing of the sort is definitely not adhering to the user’s preference as indicated by the very fucking search they did.

Not political party preference, or employee preference. This case is an excellent example of why internet platforms should be subject to common carrier.

No, you just gave an excellent example of a mindbogglingly stupid argument built on pretzel logic. Anyone who says that internet platforms should be common carriers should have their fucking head examined to determine how it’s anatomically possible that the rectum is internally attached to it.

Question: Do you also think that someone searching for information about The Holocaust should get directed to sites explaining why it was all an hoax perpetrated by Jews looking for a pay-day from Germany after WWII?

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Confusing an Item of Merchandise with Delivery of the Item

Google creates an item of merchandise. The item is a document of search research results. The item is digital literary property, which corresponds to the specification that Google provides. It would be fraud to deliver a document that did not conform to the specification.

When Google delivers the document, Google provides a service that is message common carriage of digital literary property.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Only if the word has lost all meaning or value

If you or others are going to stretch the term to the point that it covers ‘choosing not to host content you object to(for whatever reason) on your own private property’ then all that’s going to do is water it down to the point that no-one will care when it’s used.

Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re:

Middle Tennessee State University and the American Civil Liberties Union. So anybody who says that censorship is engaged in by groups other than governments is right, but they’re wrong if they go further and claim that moderation is a form of censorship. Saying you can’t say something on a specific platform isn’t at all the same as saying you can’t say it anywhere. Not trying to tell you that, just wanting to inform those reading this comment who may not already know.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

And yet none of them are passing laws to hold men who get women pregnant responsible for the child moving forward.

Given several of these “crisis” centers are owned by republicans who have tried to drive tax dollars to them, is no reason to think they are shady as fuck and should be downvoted.

Anonymous Coward says:

the majority of censorship has been put into law, by these very same 2-faced fuckers anyway, so why are they even pretending to moan? i know various areas have wanted and introduced the ‘censorship’ but they have always been backed by the politicians. these politicians are only moaning because they are now experiencing what we get every day and have done for years!!

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

“is still what Americans expect from your company

No, we don’t. Even those who what unbiased search don’t expect it. The days of typing in a word and getting a list of every result are long gone in general use SEs.

For most people, that is better. And even for those who don’t like it, we recognise our needs are served by specialty alternatives not in the general public mind.

If politicians want to direct people they should host links in their congressional page.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Confusing an Item of Merchandise with Delivery of the Item

Google creates an item of merchandise. The item is a document of search research results. The item is digital literary property, which corresponds to the specification that Google provides. It would be fraud to deliver a document that did not conform to the specification.

When Google delivers the document, Google provides a service that is message common carriage of digital literary property.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...