
Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Suspending Ad Account - dvt
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/technology/tulsi-gabbard-sues-google.html
======
slg
It might be more appropriate to link to a indepdent article about this rather
than Gabbard's site. Here is one from The Verge [1].

It sounds like Google's fraud/spam algorithms automatically triggered the
suspension (maybe due to a large increase in spend meant to build on Gabbard's
post debate momentum). The account was unlocked after human intervention.
Gabbard insinuates the initial suspension was politically motivated, which
seems hard to believe. But either way, it highlights a long standing problem
with Google giving algorithms so much power. It is also potentially more
damaging for the all of us who aren't presidential candidates and can't get
our accounts quickly restored if we mistakenly anger some unknown Google
algorithm.

[1] - [https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/25/8930373/google-tulsi-
gabb...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/25/8930373/google-tulsi-gabbard-
democratic-candidate-lawsuit-ad-search-ban-political-bias-debates)

~~~
bufferoverflow
> _insinuates the initial suspension was politically motivated, which seems
> hard to believe_

How is that hard to believe? We know for a fact Google does political
censorship.

[https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/24/insider-blows-
whis...](https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/24/insider-blows-whistle-exec-
reveals-google-plan-to-prevent-trump-situation-in-2020-on-hidden-cam/)

[https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/25/breaking-new-
googl...](https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/25/breaking-new-google-
document-leaked-describing-shapiro-prager-as-nazis-using-the-dogwhistles/)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ricI5t66cj8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ricI5t66cj8)

(note these are fresh links just from the last 2 days)

~~~
moultano
I work at Google on ranking algorithms for Search. I'm aware of everything
that controls how web pages are ranked. If I ever encountered a system that
was designed to alter the results for political reasons, I would resign.

~~~
word-reader
Just as an example: a controversial political figure's popular website is
buried on page 5 of Google results (underneath a mountain of criticism) when
you search for his name, despite being in the top 3 results of page 1 for all
of Qwant, DDG, Bing, Mojeek, and Yandex. Obviously, the website is being
downranked for being full of "conspiracy theories and fake news" (I wouldn't
completely disagree that it is). But who decided all this? Is this not
"political"?

~~~
moultano
I'd be happy to pass it along to debug if you have a specific query in mind.
In the cases of this I've seen in the past, there's been a specific actionable
bug that we were able to fix.

(Lots of other search engines use each other as backends, so don't be too
surprised when they return consistent results.)

~~~
word-reader
I think DDG and Qwant basically use Bing as a backend, potentially augmenting
with their own crawlers. Yandex and Mojeek use all their own stuff, as far as
I can tell. The query is "alex jones". At least put the garbage website at the
bottom of page 1 where most people who aren't already looking for it still
won't click it, page 5 is just lacking in subtlety.

~~~
moultano
Thanks, I'll pass it along.

------
anm89
This brings up the inherent absurdity of wanting tech infrastructure providers
to sensor their platforms.

When the mob decides that they don't like a thing then it's "why were they
allowed a platform".

Whereas when the mob wants access to a thing and then it's restricted it's
"why were they allowed to capriciously control my access"

It's an inherently unwinnable game. Tech companies who are essentially an
information utility at this point controlling huge flows of content should not
be made judge jury and executioner on what is acceptable speech.

It's bizarre to me that people who on one hand seem to hate these companies
also want to give them immense power and responsibility to restrict access to
information. It's because they associate the idea of censorship with getting
the specific thing they want censored and not with a broader world in which
these companies hold this power.

Not a huge fan of Joe Rogan but Naval Ravikant expresses this very lucidly on
the podcast:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNWN5ioF-9A&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNWN5ioF-9A&feature=youtu.be&t=592)

~~~
dv_dt
I feel like we've forgetton how to propose and discuss common standards that
should apply in encouraging and enforcing public speech. It looks like a
unwinnable game if there aren't standards - but our media and our politicians
rarely ever couch discussion in those terms, only in individual conflict terms
which makes it more difficult to pull a common direction out of the mass.

~~~
anm89
Yes this is a huge problem. These days everyone gets a say and the loudest
voice wins but many people are simply not systematic thinkers. Their idea of a
how a system should behave is whatever behavior gives them what they want now,
regardless of what the final equilibrium of moving to that state would be.

------
gringoDan
NYT article that has more information:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/technology/tulsi-
gabbard-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/technology/tulsi-gabbard-sues-
google.html)

The account was inactive from 9:30pm on June 27th - 3:30am on June 28th. This
doesn't seem like an act of malice from Google, but rather a verification
check.

Some excerpts:

> Tulsi Now Inc., the campaign committee for Ms. Gabbard, said Google
> suspended the campaign’s advertising account for six hours on June 27 and
> June 28, obstructing its ability to raise money and spread her message to
> potential voters.

> After the first Democratic debate, Ms. Gabbard was briefly the most
> searched-for candidate on Google. Her campaign wanted to capitalize on the
> attention she was receiving by buying ads that would have placed its website
> at the top of search results for her name.

> The lawsuit also said the Gabbard campaign believed its emails were being
> placed in spam folders on Gmail at “a disproportionately high rate” when
> compared with emails from other Democratic candidates.

~~~
dang
Changed to that now. See
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20528797](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20528797).

~~~
danielvinson
In general, I think people would appreciate the link not being to a paywall.

~~~
dang
Users usually post workarounds in the thread. There's one elsewhere in this
thread.

------
sct202
I saw that Googles response was that "large spending changes" caused an
automatic suspension.

With all of Google's tech, they should just have that weird Google Assistant
call the phone listed on the account to have the account owner verbally
confirm the changes instead of flat out freezing it.

------
derp_dee_derp
Both sides, Democrat and Republican, are now anti big tech.

Love it or Hate it, when you piss off the most powerful governing body on the
planet you're in for a bad time.

My question is more timeframe: Google obviously won't be broken up tomorrow,
but probably earlier than a decade from now.

I guess the timeframe depends on who wins the next presidential election?

~~~
tenpies
The worst part is I think both sides have at least some merit for their
suspicion. Obviously the Republicans seem to be more openly punished and the
balance tipped against them, but the Democrats also suffer occasionally,
especially if they are not the right Democrat.

Google might be treading dangerously close to becoming persona non-grata for
50% of the population, regardless of who wins. There is also a cautionary tale
there that perhaps the whole idea of "don't talk politics at work" was not
some tool from The Man to keep workers subdued, but rather a hard-earned
lesson to keep companies from imploding when employers think they've been
hired to be activists.

Surprise, turns out not everything has to be political and your personal
identity doesn't have to bleed over to your professional life.

------
rory096
Since OP has no actual information, some excerpts from the NYT story:

>Tulsi Now Inc., the campaign committee for Ms. Gabbard, said Google suspended
the campaign’s advertising account for six hours on June 27 and June 28,
obstructing its ability to raise money and spread her message to potential
voters.

>The lawsuit also said the Gabbard campaign believed its emails were being
placed in spam folders on Gmail at “a disproportionately high rate” when
compared with emails from other Democratic candidates.

>Google has automated systems that flag unusual activity on advertiser
accounts — including large spending changes — to prevent fraud, said Jose
Castaneda, a spokesman for the company.

>“In this case, our system triggered a suspension and the account was
reinstated shortly thereafter,” he said. “We are proud to offer ad products
that help campaigns connect directly with voters, and we do so without bias
toward any party or political ideology.”

>Gabbard campaign workers sent an email to a Google representative on June 27
at 9:30 p.m. once they realized the account had been suspended. In emails
reviewed by The New York Times, the campaign sent Google a screenshot of a
notice of suspension for “problems with billing information or violations of
our advertising policies.”

>The account was reactivated at 3:30 a.m. on June 28. In the email announcing
that it had reinstated the account, Google wrote that the company temporarily
suspended the campaign’s account to verify billing information and policy
compliance, but offered no other explanation for what had happened.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/technology/tulsi-
gabbard-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/technology/tulsi-gabbard-sues-
google.html)

~~~
delfinom
>The lawsuit also said the Gabbard campaign believed its emails were being
placed in spam folders on Gmail at “a disproportionately high rate” when
compared with emails from other Democratic candidates.

Or you know, more people spam foldered your junk mail and triggered the
algorithim to learn and mark you more globally as spam. Shit, I spam folder
anything that is unsolicited, any politicial party.

~~~
haste410
It doesn't even have to be from people, she could just have a terrible email
full of red flags and/or didn't send from a decent ESP with a good server
reputation.

------
Syama
Algorithm defense is a new Twinkie defense.

On the first debate where so many candidates are buying google ads, for Google
to have not planned for a spike in advertising and blaming it on the algorithm
is just inexcusable.

Either Google is very incompetent and the person in charge needs to be fired,
or there is something else going on. Either incompetence or intentional their
action did impact Tulsi Gabbard's post-debate moment and her fundraising
ability and google is liable in election interference.

------
abstract7
Tulsi is the most prominent Democrat presidential candidate that the media
often says has conservative views. She is also broadly considered anti-
establishment. Are there any establishment Democrat candidates (e.g. Harvard
and Yale Law faculty member and senior senator Warren) to date that have had
their Google ad accounts suspended by an 'unbiased' algorithm?

~~~
mistermann
This is the kind of evidence I'd want to see before going along with the "we
_know_ there's nothing to see here" crowd - if this outage is completely
legitimate, I'd think Google should be able to produce a list of similar
outages involving non-run-of-the-mill accounts - or, do they genuinely have no
attribute that would provide their algorithm with a hint as to the "class" an
account falls in?

------
writepub
Of all the trending searches after the debate, Google's systems singling out
Tulsi's account for flagging seems suspicious, and Google's robo-responses to
press inquiries specious. I'm sure other candidates upped their spending, so
let's have the ACTUAL numbers Google!

Also, it's a little surprising to see parroted defenses of Google here - they
operate behind an opaque cloak, designed from the ground up for plausible
deniability on every single one of their actions. Their P.R. statements cannot
be believed. Tulsi's criticisms do not seem unsubstantiated, and the fact
she's suing a corp. with unlimited funding indicates her campaign believes
they have some evidence of malice. Between the two, I'd give Tulsi the benefit
of doubt, and wait for the discovery stage in this case

------
maximente
stoked to see this on multiple fronts:

\- someone with a vested interest + some modicum of power can hold .google's
feet to the fire on this issue and will likely hammer the point home even
post-settlement or whatever (remember when they out of the blue suspended my
ad account?...)

\- Tulsi maybe gets more exposure as a candidate, leading people to her anti-
war ideals, which may influence other candidates

admittedly haven't heard google's side but there's precedent here for them
committing unwarranted screw ups. of course, if the campaign did do something
naughty that'd be a pretty big self inflicted wound.

~~~
creaghpatr
Better that they hash the issue out in the primaries than in the general.

------
orcasauce
How is this a violation of her "Freedom of speech"? Google is not the
government. The Bill of Rights protects us from the government, not private
enterprise. I feel I'm surely missing some key detail.

------
DiseasedBadger
The microphone cutting has been going on since long before the debate, kiddo.

Welcome to the private-government deplatforming dystopia.

------
Excel_Wizard
In all likelihood, Gabbard and her campaign managers are perfectly aware that:
1\. Google's automatic account suspension systems were doing exactly what they
would do for any other account.

2\. There was no intentional discrimination/meddling.

A sudden spike of search traffic corresponding with a sudden influx of
advertising spending is likely to trigger red flags for the system. 6 hours of
downtime for these google ads did damage her campaign, but Gabbard, or
anybody, is not entitled to 100% uptime for a service provided by a
corporation, except to the degree that it violates a contract/ TOS.

“Google’s discriminatory actions against my campaign are reflective of how
dangerous their complete dominance over internet search is, and how the
increasing dominance of big tech companies over our public discourse threatens
our core American values,” Gabbard said in a statement. “This is a threat to
free speech, fair elections and to our democracy, and I intend to fight back
on behalf of all Americans.”

Her statement quoted above make me like her less, and I don't feel like I'm a
particularly pro-google guy.

------
Excel_Wizard
In all likelihood, Gabbard and her campaign managers are perfectly aware that:

1\. Google's automatic account suspension systems were doing exactly what they
would do for any other account.

2\. There was no intentional discrimination/meddling.

A sudden spike of search traffic corresponding with a sudden influx of
advertising spending is likely to trigger red flags for the system. 6 hours of
downtime for these google ads did damage her campaign, but Gabbard, or
anybody, is not entitled to 100% uptime for a service provided by a
corporation, except to the degree that it violates a contract/ TOS.

“Google’s discriminatory actions against my campaign are reflective of how
dangerous their complete dominance over internet search is, and how the
increasing dominance of big tech companies over our public discourse threatens
our core American values,” Gabbard said in a statement. “This is a threat to
free speech, fair elections and to our democracy, and I intend to fight back
on behalf of all Americans.”

Her statement quoted above make me like her less, and I don't feel like I'm a
particularly pro-google guy.

~~~
FreedomToCreate
To plays devils advocate, google may be a private company, but it has a sheer
dominance in a how information is disseminated, giving it a influential role
in how people formulate there beliefs and opinions. And even though currently,
as a private company, Google can argue that they don't have to allow anyone on
there system, because of how much influence they have on the flow of
information, not having proper or fair access to there platform is equivalent
to a community not being giving access to vital utilities or education. There
is no equivalent or remotely second best option to google.

The event regardless is an issue in both Googles system and for Gabbards
campaign.

------
gundmc
Google should just disallow political ads entirely. This is a no-win
proposition. Being too lax leads to election meddling, trying to flag
suspicious activity is censorship. You're just an easy punching bag.

They've already stopped serving political ads in Canada, so there's precedent.

------
nameismypw
> The lawsuit accuses Google of violating the First Amendment, among other
> offenses, and Gabbard is seeking $50 million plus assurances that Google
> will refrain from “censoring or restricting” the account.

Isn't it common rhetoric that Google _can't_ violate the First Amendment,
being a private company? They have the ability to arbitrarily close or censor
any account they choose. Politicians don't get special treatment, especially
while saying it's fair for Google to close accounts belonging to people whom
they personally find objectionable.

------
rdtsc
On one hand this might seem like Google is trying to hurt her. On the other
hand, if there was anyone at Google who was actually rooting for her, and had
any input or ability to suspend accounts, this could end up actually helping
her, as it pits her against the "big tech" and would in the long term help her
chances of winning the election.

But, as they say, sometimes, the algorithms is just an algorithm, and it could
be just a routine suspension and Gabbard's campaign saw an opportunity to
profit (PR-wise) from it.

------
einpoklum
"We didn't really do anything to you, it was this automatic machine that we
programmed. We have no way of controlling what it does, and thus are not
responsible for the outcomes of its activities at all."

Google defense brief. Also, probably, a classic Dilbert comic.

------
shadowmore
On a first principles level, this highlights the core issue of
bans/blocks/suspensions being handed out immediately rather than after a
series of strike-based warning messages or something to that effect.

YouTube creators come to mind as some of the most blatantly affected by this,
i.e. when YouTube automatically demonetizes videos, losing the creator revenue
from 75%+ of the video's viewers, and then remonetizes it after an appeal.

At no point should any algorithm have the ability to block any account or
perform any other such drastic measure (demonetization, etc.). It's just
absurd.

------
neonate
[http://archive.is/AM6iY](http://archive.is/AM6iY)

------
AzzieElbab
whoever coined the term "artificial stupidity" is/was a prophet

------
jayjay1010
Would he resign if Google took a position in a non political debate but a
scientific debate?

[http://linkaudit.co/blog/google-takes-side-in-
controversial-...](http://linkaudit.co/blog/google-takes-side-in-
controversial-vaccine-safety-debate/)

------
amriksohata
Tulsi is one of the few candidates on either side that believes in servant
leadership

------
prpp0ndj
Perhaps it’s a simple case of “Gmail users label her messages as spam more
than other Dem candidates.” and Google is using that to train their filter.

Social norms have never been decided in an entirely open and objective way.
We’re free to speak. Not be heard. Tulsi isn’t owed an audience of Gmail
users.

Look at all these “but the free market!” type pols who got us to give
everything up to corps getting bit. Suddenly investigations and regulations be
coming!

Not a peep when, you know, they started bulk collecting the general public’s
phone calls and emails.

------
ziddoap
I'm not a proponent of censorship by any means, but I'm starting to get
serious fatigue of these types of stories.

Especially in the case of politicians, I have no sympathy when Google or
Facebook or Twitter decides to terminate or otherwise take action on an
account. Rally behind them until it becomes inconvenient, then launch a suit!
What hypocrisy.

We got here because of our weird fervor for capitalism, holding it up as some
pinnacle of society. Yet when a company successfully exploits all that
capitalism has to offer, it's screams and outrage!

I admit, I am not fully up to speed on this story. But here's the kicker -
after reading this article, I _still_ have no idea what the story is. This is
just boilerplate "rally against the big tech companies!" without any rhyme or
reason - at least no reason mentioned in the article.

> _Please join Tulsi in her fight for our core American values of free speech
> and fair elections._

Free speech flows two ways, which is often forgotten. Corporate entities are
entitled to free speech as well, for the better or for worse. They are also
entitled to remove anyone from their platform or limit the services they offer
someone. This is baked into the concept of capitalism. The whole legal system
is built on the premise that corporations are awarded autonomy / person-hood.

The whole rallying against the corporations which capitalism enabled, in the
name of capitalism and free speech.. I just don't understand it.

We wanted capitalism. We got it.

Stop begging for governments to intervene in private companies, while praising
capitalism like some god. Pick a path. And then, apparently, ask for some
donations.

~~~
not_a_cop75
Let companies rule the world! Let them put whatever they want in our meats!
Remember the term "mystery meat"? That was from poor quality controls in
corporate with zero government oversight.

~~~
ziddoap
I'm not saying that this is the way it should be.

I'm just pointing out that we _fought_ for capitalism in it's truest form, and
then got angry when companies exploited it. (And still praise it when it suits
us)

~~~
perl4ever
You're describing the caricature of capitalism by people who oppose it and
saying "we fought for it". That's silly, regardless of whether your
description is accurate or not.

------
vernie
Tangentially related question: How much money will be spent by all these
losing campaigns?

~~~
icebraining
A few hundred million dollars: [https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-
race](https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race)

------
suyash
I hope so wins the lawsuit!

~~~
vernie
Yea it almost certainly tanked her campaign.

~~~
m463
On the contrary, I believe the publicity will call lots of attention to her.

------
mistermann
Can anyone think of any likely and plausible explanations for what went wrong
on Google's end?

~~~
djrogers
Yes - it's even outlined in the articles. A sudden increase in spending
triggered a fraud detection algorithm, and the account was re-established
before the next morning when a human verified there was no fraud.

