
Google CEO Sundar Pichai to Meet with Top GOP Lawmakers - tareqak
https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-ceo-sundar-pichai-to-meet-with-top-gop-lawmakers-1537829900
======
tbabb
Since when does the government get to police ideological speech, or complain
about "bias"? Google could in principle make its results insanely left-leaning
and the first amendment should protect them. Are we going to let the
government choose which results get suppressed to suit its own needs?

They must be very careful not to let the narrative become "we don't bias our
results, we swear!" (even if it's true) because that validates the notion that
the government is allowed to complain about it, and puts the burden on them to
prove it. Their position should be a very firm "don't tell us what to f*cking
do."

~~~
fvdessen
> Google could in principle make its results insanely left-leaning and the
> first amendment should protect them.

Well, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. While the
Government cannot police google's speech, it can certainly break it up with
anti-monopoly laws.

~~~
tbabb
"Say more conservative things or else we'll take regulatory action against
your company" sounds to me like an extremely first amendment-violating abuse
of government power.

~~~
stcredzero
_Say more conservative things or else we 'll take regulatory action against
your company" sounds to me like an extremely first amendment-violating abuse
of government power._

Many YouTubers and many Twitter users would say more conservative things, but
Google and Twitter actively discourage and ban users in a way which is
pointedly biased. Some of those so targeted deserve such treatment. However,
not all of them do. Many of them are simply in ideological disagreement.

It's a dilemma. If monopolies and near-monopolies are allowed to use corporate
power to police speech, then this is allowed in the letter of the law, but it
stinks to high heaven as far as the spirit of free speech goes. On the other
hand, the government shouldn't be in the business of policing speech.

The way out of this dilemma is to break up near-monopoly power where it
exists. Right now, there really isn't a good alternative to YouTube, and this
near monopoly power lets them effectively police speech across the entirety of
a certain kind of widespread culturally relevant media: That of personal video
commentary.

~~~
tbabb
There is a big philosophical and legal difference between a population of
companies each executing editorial/moderating power over content published on
their own platforms and a central government doing the same thing over
arbitrary content on arbitrary platforms.

Who is doing the editing is extremely important. If a newspaper declines to
publish a white supremacist screed in their op-ed column, that is not
censorship. The screeching racist can always try and publish somewhere else,
or publish themselves (online or in print), or yell in the streets. But if the
government intervenes and tries to force/prevent any of those things from
happening, that's censorship and it's unconstitutional. Completely different
ballgame. It drives me up the wall that people think those cases are
"equivalent".

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Not the right word I think. Of course it censorship Its just not government
censorship, and thus not a protected mode of free speech. Not equivalent of
course, but still censorship all the same.

Free speech is an American value, not just a few words in the Constitution.
I'm sympathetic when folks object to private censors. As an American, I'm
offended as well.

~~~
tbabb
In your view, is a newspaper obligated to publish a racist screed every time
someone sends one in?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
A newspaper has editors and a viewpoint. An online platform for folks to post
their own articles does not. Its akin to the post office having an editorial
board?

~~~
tbabb
Unlike the post office, both a newspaper and Google's primary competitive
service is organizing and prioritizing information. Would you suggest that the
government mandate how they do that?

The post office is more analogous to the transport layer, in which case you'd
be making a solid case for net neutrality, and I'd agree with you there. The
post office having an editorial board would be like Comcast having an
editorial board.

------
Fede_V
You almost have to admire the total ruthlessness of republican operatives. By
constantly playing on the offensive, they've put Facebook and Twitter on a
constantly defensive posture worried about being called out as having 'liberal
bias'.

The fact that Jack had to personally intervene to stop his employees from
banning Alex Jones (after numerous egregious violations) speaks to the power
of this approach.

~~~
thrower123
Twitter at least is obvious and unapolagetic in their censoring. Alex Jones
and Milo are trolls, sure. But it was enlightening seeing James Woods silenced
this week.

~~~
spangry
FYI, this is the tweet that got him locked out of his account:
[https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/styles/inline_...](https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/styles/inline_image_desktop/public/inline-
images/woods%20tweet%201.jpg)

------
propman
The significant backlash from both left and right and the hubris is skipping
the senate hearing combined with Trump’s executive order threatens to actually
hurt Google, forcing him to show up. Google is the most powerful lobbyist in
US history so they’re pretty immune to all this and control all legislation
passed that pertains to them but with the public bipartisan backlash, maybe
they feel threatened.

~~~
kyrra
Google had offered someone else to appear (their top lawyer). It's unclear
when the senate committee decided to reject this person and require Sundar or
Larry to show up. It's very possible he had other things already lined up that
weren't easily changeable.

~~~
reaperducer
If every other tech CEO can show up, he can.

"I have other things going on" is not an excuse to blow off a DC committee
meeting. Unless it's a life-threatening condition, you go.

And, no, your lawyer isn't the same thing. They want the head man to answer.

You can be thrown in jail for contempt of Congress.

Does anyone know if any CEO in the history of the nation has ever not shown up
at one of these things?

~~~
kyrra
Facebook sent their COO. Twitter sent their CEO. Kent Walker[0] is Google's
CLO (legal officer) and SVP of Global Affairs.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Walker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Walker)

~~~
ocdtrekkie
COO and CEO are both positions of people who make decisions about the
direction and conduct of the company. Those are people useful to question.

Kent Walker is their head lawyer ("CLO") and head of PR ("SVP of Global
Affairs"). His sole job is to help the actual decisionmakers get away with
whatever they decided to do. No matter how many titles they give him, offering
to send him will never be more than a literal slap in the face.

~~~
tschwimmer
I don't think this argument is warranted. Corporate structure varies wildly
among companies, especially among tech companies. You're right that General
Counsel (here called Chief Legal Officer) isn't traditionally seen as on par
with a C suite executive, but it may make sense for Google to send him
especially if government affairs are handled by his reporting chain. By the
way, I've never heard of PR being referred to as Global Affairs. In my
experience that's typically a euphemism for a company's lobbying arm, which in
this case would make a lot of sense, don't you think? PR at Google seems to be
called "Communications" which is fairly standard in the Valley.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
I may have over-simplified "Global Affairs" to "PR", but essentially, it means
he's supposed to smooth over relations diplomatically with organizations,
governments, people, etc. around the globe. Sure, that does sound exactly like
who would speak to Congress, but again, like being a lawyer, global affairs
doesn't make decisions for the company, it sells those decisions to other
people.

Congress wanted to question the people who _made decisions_ at these
companies, and Google refused.

------
polskibus
Why a private meeting? Surely it's transparency Google needs to regain public
trust?

~~~
davidw
The GOP lawmakers aren't interested in public trust, but in gaining leverage -
that would be my thought, at least.

~~~
anoncoward111
This is correct. Yesterday I was downvoted for defending Alex Jones' right to
free speech, and today I will be downvoted for defending Google from
overzealous Republicans.

 _shrugs_

~~~
geodel
Just downvoted? Not provided strange arguments like "Right to free speech is
not right free reach" or Google/FB/Apple/Twitter are private companies and do
not owe anything to whom they don't like?

~~~
User23
I know you’re kidding and this is funny, because corporations couldn’t even
exist without the state passing statutes allowing incorporation.

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

~~~
a9entroy
Lifesaver, you are.

------
root_axis
If some people consider google search results to be biased why don't they just
use another search engine? It seems contradictory to claim that something is
fundamentally wrong with google's search results but also claim that the
results are so good that the alternatives are unacceptable.

~~~
Cyclone_
They could be good in some ways but bad in other ways(e.g. censoring
information to help a candidate Google favors)

~~~
root_axis
Ok. So like any product, the consumer can weigh the good against the bad and
then make the choice to use the product that they prefer the most. This is
especially true in the case of search engines which cost no money for the
consumer thus there is no risk to considering alternatives.

------
s73v3r_
There was never any evidence whatsoever that Google was doing anything to
conservative sources. The only thing this is going to lead to is the same
thing it lead to on Twitter: policing leftist sources that much harder so they
can say, "See? We're not biased!"

------
jonathankoren
There’s a delightful irony of those that loudly advocate for small government,
laissez faire regulation, and claim to support free speech, to want a large
government bureaucracy to tell a private company on what they should be
compelled publish.

------
oh-kumudo
They have to, the current admin is threatening to break them up. Google isn't
sworn to a political ideology, even its employees are overwhelmingly
concentrated at the end of the spectrum.

------
techntoke
Where is the P2P decentralized search engine to rescue the world? Why is
everyone set on cloud hosting, when we should be looking at ways to federate
cloud resources and distribute them.

------
buboard
no talk about antitrust/ breaking it up?

------
ronilan
Why was the WSJ title edited and the “U.S.” qualifier added? Does Google have
any other CEOs beside Sundar?

~~~
hcnews
It seems like a copy-paste mistake. The wsj page has US just before the title.
Someone should edit this title.

------
a_hypotehsis
The right way POLITICALLY to interpret recent claims of "bias" against Google
is as a preparation of the battlefield for successful anti-trust action down
the road. i.e., it's just "politics".

...but then again, the Google Doodle I see today is: "register to vote!"

That's clearly an attempt to put a thumb on the scales, against a party and
administration that is threatening anti-trust action against Google.

I'm already voting the way Google wants me to, but a shovel is a shovel.

~~~
travmatt
You believe providing citizens information on how to vote is putting a thumb
of the scales and biasing voters, and instructing you on how to vote?

~~~
a_hypotehsis
Thanks for the comment! I did not and would not classify this as an
"instruction".

However, given what we know about voter demographics and turnout in the United
States during "mid-term" elections (low turnout among young people, with much
"green field" to expand into)... it's clearly an attempt to influence the
election, in the favor of Google shareholders' interest.

I'd cite references, but they are too easy to Google (heh).

It's a shovel all right.

(PS -- don't get me wrong or reflexively downvote me for perceived
partisanship -- my party interests align with Google's in this matter, outside
of anti-trust issues)

EDIT: to add, Google ran no such Doodle for National Voter Registration day
last year, according to their archives. HMMMMM.

------
PHGamer
I dont think google should be regulated, they are free to censor. _on the
other hand_ i wouldnt cry if the GOP broke them all social sites up as it
really is just an oligarchy. If only google blocked alex jones and he stayed
on FB then i wouldnt see an issue because competition. However, i think its
fair to say they are following the exact same policies so theres no
competition.

~~~
prolikewh0a
>I dont think google should be regulated, they are free to censor.

Why do we willingly allow private governments, especially those with an
enormous amount of power over people? Who would ever want these companies with
hundreds of millions to a billion+ users to be allowed to censor other than
complying with local laws?

In my opinion, Google, Facebook, and other large corporations are a threat to
our democracy & elections in a much larger way than any Russia claim that
could be made. Censorship on the level that Google could and probably does
pull off is a major concern and could swing elections that directly effect
Americans negatively at the benefit of Google.

~~~
ardy42
> Why do we willingly allow private governments, especially those with an
> enormous amount of power over people? Who would ever want these companies
> with hundreds of millions to a billion+ users to be allowed to censor other
> than complying with local laws?

It's because people confuse the law with the principles it was meant to
implement, so they stop their analysis after they've determined
legality/illegality.

Hypothetically, you could engineer away freedom of speech and freedom of
assembly without changing the Constitution at all, if one corporation owned
all the land and all the communication facilities in the US. It could enact a
draconian, ideological censorship regime just by exercising its property
rights, and that would be Constitutionally kosher because it's not an
organization classified as "government." Antitrust law, etc. is not part of
the Constitution and could Constitutionally be repealed or gutted. The
Constitution was written to prevent many _particular_ forms of tyranny and
violations of rights, but it doesn't protect from all of them. That's why you
can't stop with it; oftentimes you have to look deeper.

~~~
s73v3r_
Or it's because we recognize that others also have freedom of speech, and
freedom of association. If YouTube doesn't want Alex Jones spreading his
unfounded conspiracies and saying that Sandy Hook victims are crisis actors,
then why should they be obligated to associate with that?

------
spbaar
He better have the chuptzpah to come out of the meeting telling the truth that
Google results do not have an ideological bias and consider his civic duty
complete after showing lawmakers evidence of such. We've seen what happens at
Facebook when they try to make sure the range of opinions published is
"neutral". I've seen people complain that the little 'i' symbol next to news
stories on Facebook that details the viewpoint and credibility of the linked
site is discriminatory.

There will always be a constituency for people who love to play victims to
social media companies. That should not affect their decisions.

~~~
colordrops
Google search results and news absolutely have a bias. These services aren't
made in a vacuum. They are made and tuned by people with biases. Technology
doesn't have some special ability to sort out ground truth from human bias. It
just reflects our biases.

As mentioned elsewhere in the comments, the question shouldn't be whether
google is biased or not, but whether the government should be getting involved
at all.

~~~
komali2
Do you have evidence for this claim (that Google search results are biased)?
I'd love to read more.

~~~
colordrops
You are misreading my comment. I am not stating that Google has a particular
bias, but that technology is inherently biased.

~~~
komali2
I apologise for misreading your comment. I read it as speaking about Google in
particular because of the first line:

>Google search results and news absolutely have a bias.

That, and the context of this post, "Google CEO... To meet with top GOP
lawmakers..." made me believe we were talking about Google.

I think "technology is biased" is an interesting discussion, depending on
definitions of technology, but given the context I'd prefer to focus on
Google: do you believe Google search results and news are biased, and if so,
is this a belief you support with evidence that I could also learn about, or
is it more due to your general "technology is biased" philosophy?

