
Google exec responds to Project Veritas video about bias - rosterface
https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-monday-to-go-e92771c7aa82
======
jeromic
Google has removed the original video from youtube over a "privacy claim" and
have disabled responses on this medium post.

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.

~~~
UncleMeat
Given that she has already gotten threatening messages, that seems like a
reasonable response. The primary responsibility should be to the safety of the
employee.

~~~
khawkins
If getting "threatening messages" from anonymous social media accounts is the
standard we're going to apply to whether or not we can talk about corruption
of power, say goodbye to free speech.

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.

------
captainredbeard
It would be nice if she’d elaborate on the comments she made, particularly
where the “imprecise” language was —- what was she trying to say at the
dinner? There were many long runs of commentary without opportunity for
deceptive editing.

~~~
jeromic
“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.”

“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.

~~~
v7p1Qbt1im
It could also just mean, they weren't prepared for the onslaught of bad actors
like troll/bot farms. Those actors often take both sides of the argument with
the simple goal to instigate hate and rage and eventually cause as much
societal division as possible.

~~~
anon12345690
did you see the meeting video leaked after the election? they were all
actually crying and upset and swore to change things. this isnt a single
incident. they openly say this in the company, its like a cult

------
rosterface
For context, this is the report she’s talking about:
[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/)

~~~
Crontab
Reminds me of the Planned Parenthood hatchet job.

~~~
slubaro1987
Also that time O'Keefe and co edited a speech about racial tolerance and
solidarity among impoverished farmers to make it seem like the speaker was
advocating racism.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_of_Shirley_Sherrod](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...](https://theintercept.com/2019/05/03/erik-prince-trump-uae-project-
veritas/)

~~~
captainredbeard
I’ve watched the video where she expressed “solidarity with impoverished
farmers” in explicitly racial terms. Maybe her intent was simply solidarity,
but race-based solidarity is frowned upon... and racist!

To those in disbelief, watch it yourself and see if it’s “deceptive editing”
(a dog whistle)

------
uncoder0
This post like every other post about Project Veritas have been heavily
flagged off the front page. Looks like damage control, not a good look.

------
cannedslime
What a lame excuse to be completely honest. The Project Veritas video clearly
isn't edited like she claims it is, she is downright admitting to redefine
what "fairness" means so it is the opposite. The video clearly shows creepy
slides on how google plans to "program" humans, condition them to a certain
political viewpoint, even if they have to censor truth...

Just split up google at this point...

~~~
cromwellian
That's not what those slides say at all, they're talking about how biased
information already programs you.

~~~
cannedslime
Maybe you should just go see the exposé yourself...

[https://www.bitchute.com/video/re9Xp6cdkro/](https://www.bitchute.com/video/re9Xp6cdkro/)

------
devoply
meh only matter of time until this sort of propaganda idealism is the norm
across the valley. lots of sjws justify banning various actors as the right of
the private corp. this again falls into that same purview. they can show you
whatever selected by an ai trained on whatever rules for whatever social
agenda they wish to push -- this has been going on for over a cenury. social
engineering becomes more explicit than implicit.

~~~
Mindwipe
They've been doing AI training for a century? Wow, this goes deeper than I
thought.

Oh, oh no, wait. This the plot to Bay's first Transformers movie.

~~~
devoply
This is replacing editorial control.

See century of self.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEsPOt8MG7E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEsPOt8MG7E)

------
mrosett
I'm no fan of James O'Keefe, but some of the direct quotes are much more
incriminating than this response makes them out to be:

> “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.

~~~
jjeaff
It doesn't seem incriminating at all. When she says "the Trump situation" in
this context it seems clear she is talking about making sure that foreign and
otherwise nefarious actors are not able to game search results and the ad
system to spread disinformation. Which is what happened in the last election.

~~~
tropo
That will _always_ happen, but what is the significance? Trump himself spent
six or seven hundred million dollars, and Clinton spent about double that.
Where is the evidence that any "foreign and otherwise nefarious actors" did
even 1% of that?

It makes no sense to get riled up over numbers that would be rounded to zero.

------
dmode
Project Veritas is truly some bottom of barrel garbage, probably worse than
Alex Jones.

~~~
malvosenior
Yet here they are breaking an important story. Do you have a comment on the
actual content of their report?

~~~
guilhas
Important story that no other main news source is reporting.

~~~
vetinari
That begs another question: why?

~~~
tropo
Sheer terror would explain it.

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.

~~~
vetinari
That could explain a part, but not the entire phenomenon.

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.

