"If you show probability work like Hillary having lower election odds, then this is new definition of hate speech."
I get that the guy is angry. I would be too if I got locked out of my accounts, but this is a ludicrous accusation -- the new definition of hate speech?
"Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity." The idea that google is waging war on this guy because of election predictions he made 12 months ago is absurd on the face of it.
Our society has been completely taken over by Hofstadter's [paranoid style](https://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-am...). Everything is taken as evidence of some vast conspiracy of fascists or communists. (A couple weeks ago there was an article posted here alleging that google was suppressing anti-communist websites.)
Replace "freemasons" or "international bankers" with "social justice warriors" and we're right back in the 1950's again.
I think you're right and I hope you're right. However, their system seems exceedingly sensitive to a certain political narrative.
I've heard about both antifa and alt right bearing most of the auto trips, but many incidental opinions such as this are getting caught up in their dragnet. That's not a good thing.
I would be inclined to believe it wasn't something very deliberate if it was only one or a few services getting shut down, but everything is fully removed. Even his [blog](https://statisticalideas.blogspot.com) has a "this has been removed" header.
That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if there's more to this story than what's come out so far. I think it's worth following.
There's no such thing as a partial account removal. It's like your LDAP or AD account: you disable it and all services stop working, without having to worry about how each of them does access control on the front end as well as the back end. The latter can be the tricky and non obvious part.
Jordan Peterson, a psychology professor, also got locked out of his account. He also happens to have incorrect views. Have any other professors been locked out of their account?
> advised on polling statistics for the Trump campaign
Going out on a limb here, I'd guess it might have something to do with that? It would also be very foolish of them to ever admit it and I bet they will come back and say it was an innocent "algorithm" mistake if this blows up too much. Unless someone internally leaks the mechanism or the reason it would be hard to tell.
I think Google, Facebook, maybe Twitter and others are furiously working to fill the void left the failure of the traditional media to manufacture consent. Large traditional media conglomerates had one job and that was to make sure a particular presidential candidate won and they failed. Very quickly after Facebook and Google issued a statement how they are blaming "Fake News" and how they will be working on controlling and eliminating that.
While it all seems innocent and helpful "Oh look Google is working on eliminating hate and fake news, isn't that nice". It is also a signal to those who have billions to spend on campaigns (political, marketing, etc) saying "Want to manufacture some consent? Come to us, let us help you. CNN/NBC/NYT are too crusty and old and not effective anymore. Inconvenient statistics getting in your way, don't worry, they will be silenced".
As others have said it KGB or Stasi would have given everything to have access to the kinds of data Google and Facebook has. I think it is foolish to assume these companies will just use that data just to sell ads, share cat pictures and connect you with your old classmates. I think they will start selling "silencing" as a service (SaaS) at some point.
It does indeed seem he was shut down, but it's unclear as to "why" it was done. Google's standard black box in effect. That may be the most frustrating part.
If they reply like that when turning down appeals, it's usually for something very egregious that might have legal ramifications. Look up "thomasmonopoly" for a case at the very edge of legality that made it to HN years ago. (I'm not saying that it's the case here, but it gives you an idea of the seriousness, especially if VPs go silent.)
Not familiar with Zerohedge but the entire thing does seem pretty questionable, especially non-reinstatement after review.
Google needs to get on clarifying this and the reasons behind ASAP because right now it looks like an entire internet presence was shut down due to publishing unpopular math.
Our email accounts are widely considered the gateway to all of our other services, particularly in light of the ability to reset passwords with access to the account's address.
It is for this reason that we consider email account security of paramount importance, and Google's early implementation of Google Authenticator, U2F token support, etc, is admirable.
But now we have entered an era in which we need to consider the capricious, political whims of our email providers as a significant part of our threat model.
Do not rely on Google and its services if your public beliefs / opinions do not align with the establishment, are politically incorrect in even the slightest degree, or if you value your privacy. There are good alternatives (preferably open source).
Odd tho'. This mechanism defeats caching; it must cost them cash money to run on that architecture vs generating then serving static pages, perhaps only dynamically fetching comments. Someone at Google thinks it's worth paying for the ability to erase blogs entirely.
Read the original comment I replied to. The content is not in archive.org because of this design. So it is probably not in any other caches/archives/backups either.
Time to step up my move from gmail, I guess. Who knows what opinion I might express that might inadvertently trigger such a reaction. I'm a member of the "let them talk - they'll hang themselves with their own noose" school of thought. Google can do what they want, of course. But so can I. I've already ditched yahoo mail for fastmail and was planning on moving from gmail eventually. Guess I'll step that up.
First step for me was moving my E-mail address to a domain I control (or at least I think I do, for now). That way, at least my identity is mine, should G decide to no longer host my content. Scary to have to think about this, but an opinion that is uncontroversial today may be unutterable tomorrow, given the relentless and accelerating march of political correctness.
At the risk of being tangential to the topic: Let this be a friendly reminder that if you, like me, use google services heavily, it may be in your best interest to do regular backups of your account state. (I have no affiliation etc; I just realized when reading this that it had been almost a year since my last backup)
This has to be a mistake. Whenever you outright ban someone with the minimalist interaction the way Google does it, you open yourself up to accusations of all kinds of suppression. You allow the person who being banned to define why they were in the absence of any message from Google.
Now, it's all well and good to go and ban white supremacists, KKK members, hate groups, etc. It's monumental stupidity to ban an academic with proper credentials. It's even in effective. Even in the most extreme case, his careful scholarly screeds about statistics isn't exactly going to make frothing hordes of racists; not near the same way as banning him without cause, reason or explanation.
It's silly. His twitter shows him writing article headlines in provocative ways (for an academic) but, nothing even close to supporting a group like the KKK but, in this atmosphere and with Google trying mobilize probably thousands of young, probably uneducated (cheap) people review accounts for deletion, it was probably someone who saw one of these procative headlines and marked this blog for deletion without looking or realizing who this person was.
Strangely, the same thing happen to Jordan Peterson not even a month ago. Another academic but, with far more controversial views but, far more outcry came of it and Google reversed it in a few days.
All of this is embarassing for Google who for years has invested in very light touch style of customer service and it's coming back to bite them in the ass.
I wouldn't be so sure. Do this to a few people and thousands of others start to mince their words. It could be extremely effective if it were employed as a political strategy, because being locked out of your Google account is a major problem for most people.
If he hasn't yet, he should submit this to https://onlinecensorship.org/. Curious how often this happens, I don't have a good data set but it seems like this has been happening a lot more recently.
> this is a ludicrous accusation -- the new definition of hate speech?
slackstation:
> This has to be a mistake.
> it was probably someone who saw one of these procative headlines and marked this blog for deletion without looking or realizing who this person was.
redm:
> It does indeed seem he was shut down, but it's unclear as to "why" it was done. Google's standard black box in effect.
ForHackernews:
> I highly doubt there's any political agenda at play here.
At least 4 out of 11 parent comments so far cover: the "ludicrous accusation" of the censored victim, "it was probably mistakenly banned and repeatedly denied further attempts at access", "we're not sure why he's banned", and "we're not sure why he's banned, but it's certainly not related to all of the other political censorship and outright subversive manipulation that's been occurring towards anyone who doesn't subscribe to the mainstream media narrative".
That's right, nothing to see here folks. Dismiss this crazy person for speaking the truth. Statistics should be supressed. Deny their ability to speak out against the extreme subversion that is taking place. Deny their ability to organize. Isolate and destroy. Or you're next.
> Thank you all very much, in recent days, for the outpouring of support in my Google predicament. I love you, and together we can and will always achieve great things. Have also spoken with the leadership there, and they restored accounts. I also don’t carry any grievance towards any part of Google, and have no intention of further comments.
That seems like a really strange reply. Why would he word it like that? The only possibilities I can think of are that either Google required such a reply in order to re-enable his account in order to not get in trouble, or he has done something wrong but doesn't want to talk about it.
Contrary to some of the other comments, I highly doubt there's any political agenda at play here. More likely, this user inadvertently tripped some automated algorithm somewhere, and then failed the automated appeals process.
That said, it's their service and their rules. Don't host data you care about on free services run by capricious multinationals.
>That said, it's their service and their rules. Don't host data you care about on free services run by capricious multinationals.
I 100% agree. Their service, their rules.
However, these platforms have carved out special rules for themselves on the basis of neutrality - look at the DMCA Safe Harbor provision. They've portrayed themselves as neutral platforms that accommodate everyone who can follow the terms of service. However, they seem to either apply the TOS more rigorously to some groups than others - that's completely antithetical to the idea of a neutrality.
In addition to saying "their service their rules" we should say "their service, their accountability". Strip them of the immunity they enjoy as platform providers and hold them accountable for all the content on their platforms - they curate the content, obviously everything that isn't banned or under review is content they support.
Also, through the disparate impact standards this probably merits some equal accommodation scrutiny. I don't have all the information in front of me, but it looks like Google's censorship for American users seems to catch more socially conservative users than socially liberal users - that probably has a desperate impact across a few protected classes (age and religion come to mind).
Now, I'm not saying that Google is guilty of refusing service to some protected classes. But I think their behavior merits some investigation to make sure that they're fulfilling their equal accommodation obligations like other American corporations.
Given the importance of email and other online services - should multinational corporations be allowed to be capricious about who they provide service to, and how those users are cut off from their digital lifeline?
That Google reigns in the automated bans and automated appeals process, and provide time to do backups of their data and find an alternative solution. Ideally, if their goal is to reduce fraud and spam, they would offer people banned from their free email service a paid account under a different domain, or something similar.
The longer that Google fails to take action, the more likely it is that the government will. ISPs and other major online services are looking more and more like common carriers from the point of view of the government officials. They already have an acronym which is used to refer to them - GAFA - a major warning sign.
And like an elephant stepping on a mouse, the mouse won't be the only one affected when the government rouses itself.
There is a fairly clear line between bans for illegal content, and bans for unpopular content. The two are nowhere near equivalent.
Not to mention, the user information on the account has likely already been handed off to law enforcement, at which point a grace period is of no practical consequence.
> There is a fairly clear line between bans for illegal content, and bans for unpopular content.
Not really, as Google has no special power to decide “illegal”. Unless you mean, a line between band directed specifically by the state (where a government orders specific accounts banned) and those decided by the service provider.
> Not to mention, the user information on the account has likely already been handed off to law enforcement, at which point a grace period is of no practical consequence.
If law enforcement disagreed with the service provider, there is a significant difference.
> Google has no special power to decide “illegal”.
They don't need to - that's been taken care of for them by the written law. Unpopular speech has yet to be considered illegal.
If the law enforcement disagrees with the service provider about providing a grace period, then law enforcement can get a court order. It's a small hurdle, but it keeps everything on the level.
That's the simple answer. However, there is a trade-off between the rights of a property owner and service provider to determine how their property is used and whom they provide service to, and the rights of the public not to be arbitrarily excluded from using that property or service.
The complex question is whether Google's servers should be considered more like private property that provides a public service and has to allow access to anyone or like the private property that is your personal computer, where you can grant and revoke access as you please and nobody has a say in that.
There seem to be three different premises being used for the argument that Google, et al., shouldn't be able to send service the way they do (or, in some cases like this one, are alleged with no clear evidence to do):
(1) the services, despite not legally being anything like privately owned public open spaces, should have an interest seized by the state and be converted into the digital analog of such spaces.
(2) despite in many cases having many robustly competing providers, the services should be subjected to utility-style regulation.
(3) political position ought to be a protected class for public accommodation discrimination, and all the acts at issue should be considered within the scope of prohibited political position discrimination under such law.
It might be complicated for you, but it's simple for me. Google can do what it wants with its stuff and you don't get to tell it what to do with its computers. They don't have a monopoly on any essential services.
Well, it's also "their" power lines, water mains, sewer, and phone lines. We as a society don't let people be cut off from those services for their politics or their religion.
And when people are cut off from aforementioned utilities, it's done with notice, and with the ability to have service restored when payment resumes.
> Well, it's also "their" power lines, water mains, sewer, and phone lines
Monopoly utilities are different than services for which their are widespread alternatives, and Google's account-required services are neither monopolies nor regulated utilities.
The existence of alternatives does not negate a monopoly argument. Netscape, Opera, and other browsers existed when Microsoft was slapped down for IE. Google captures somewhere around 60% of the email market share - a dominant position from which they need to be careful about what actions they take.
As noted in response to a sibling comment, the presence of alternative providers has proven to not to be a reliable remedy for some opinions.
No, they are not currently regulated utilities. However, I believe that if they aren't careful, they may find themselves forced into that role.
> The existence of alternatives does not negate a monopoly argument.
It's suggestive evidence. But no actual “monopoly argument” has been made to negate.
> Netscape, Opera, and other browsers existed when Microsoft was slapped down for IE.
Sure, but IE wasn't the monopoly they got slapped down for, it was the thing they got slapped down for trying to drive with their PC operating system monopoly. So the existence and market strength f competing browsers isn't even related to the market in which the monopoly at issue existed.
> So the existence and market strength f competing browsers isn't even related to the market in which the monopoly at issue existed.
It was directly related, because it threatened Microsoft's OS monopoly by providing platform independent content. And so, Microsoft directly attacked Netscape and others.
"Judge Jackson finds that Microsoft was especially concerned about technologies, such as Netscape’s Navigator browser, that could support platform-independent computing and thereby erode Microsoft’s position. In response to the Netscape threat, Microsoft undertook a broad array of anticompetitive practices to increase the market share of its Internet Explorer."[0]
But you're right, it's not the alternatives that really matter - it's using the power associated with being a monopoly to negatively impact consumers. Google has an effective monopoly in many areas (including email), and as such practices which were OK when they were smaller are no longer going to be considered OK.
> It was directly related, because it threatened Microsoft's OS monopoly by providing platform independent content
It's related to Microsoft's notice for illegally leveraging their OS monopoly, because of a speculative future threat it posed to that monopt by commoditizing the underlying OS.
It isn't directly related to the market at that time in which Microsoft had a monopoly; competing browsers we're not yet substitute goods for Microsoft's PC operating system, the way that competing email services are substitute goods for Google's email service.
This is the same argument that was used to wrongfully deny service to gay couples. You are turning a blind eye because corporations are attacking an ideology we disagree with.
I do not believe that some people should be treated more equally than others.
> This is the same argument that was used to wrongfully deny service to gay couples.
It is the argument that is still lawfully used to deny service on the basis of sexual orientation in much of the country; only a minority of states have public accommodation laws under which sexual orientation is a protected class.
The balance between the state interests involvee in public accommodation laws and the free speech and free association rights they limit is a source of endless debate. The fact that the public in some part of the country has decided that one axis has circumstances which warrant such a limitation is not enough to make the case that everyone must accept that the limitation is universally justified for some other axis.
> I do not believe that some people should be treated more equally than others.
Which can be an argument for internet companies not having their free speech rights limited in order to mandate that they relay political views they disagree with as easily as it can be an argument for that imposition.
> It is the argument that is still lawfully used to deny service on the basis of sexual orientation in much of the country; only a minority of states have public accommodation laws under which sexual orientation is a protected class.
> Which can be an argument for internet companies not having their free speech rights limited in order to mandate that they relay political views they disagree with as easily as it can be an argument for that imposition.
That argument seems in direct opposition to the argument that, e.g. Christian bakers and photographers should be required to provide services for gay weddings. If Google may not be mandated to relay political views that they disagree with, how can photographers be mandated to do so? Do multi-national megacorporations have more rights than individuals? Or is one political view simply wrong, and therefore acceptable to discriminate against?
It's not the same because white supremacists and other groups like this are not recognized by civil rights laws designed to prevent discrimination. These laws are specific and they single out groups that experience persecution due to history, culture or minority status, such as sex, age, color, sexual orientation, etc. Hate movements are not considered protected groups (in my opinion for good reason).
> Don't host data you care about on free services run by capricious multinationals.
But people recommend to me not rolling out my own email domain and/or service to manage my account recovery emails for various websites as it's much more likely to get hacked.
The bubble cheerleaders that dominate HN groupthink don't consider ZH a credible source, so indirect linkage was likely done to avoid the insta-flag effect.
Would you please not post ideological flamebait to HN? It's just the thing we're trying to avoid here, and the site guidelines explicitly ask you not to.
isn't collaboration with Trump enough ground for ostracism? all of progressive humanity should spit in the face of that professor and demand justice.
on a serious note:
it is quite fascinating for watch US walk down this path. i see striking similarities between what is happening now - war with monuments, renaming the streets, "tolerant" left screaming for blood, witch hunt... between all of this and life in USSR under Stalin. of course, no executions, but everything else is in place. soon you will be removing pictures of enemies of the state from schoolbooks: http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/52af668569bedd3b264...
(and this is without Photoshop btw!). stroke of a pen, and confederates are removed from the history! the thing is that in Soviet Union they couldn't keep up with removing - once you start erasing the past, you cannot stop. it is very sad and disappointing to see US going down that path. of all countries...
I get that the guy is angry. I would be too if I got locked out of my accounts, but this is a ludicrous accusation -- the new definition of hate speech?
"Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity." The idea that google is waging war on this guy because of election predictions he made 12 months ago is absurd on the face of it.
Our society has been completely taken over by Hofstadter's [paranoid style](https://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-am...). Everything is taken as evidence of some vast conspiracy of fascists or communists. (A couple weeks ago there was an article posted here alleging that google was suppressing anti-communist websites.)
Replace "freemasons" or "international bankers" with "social justice warriors" and we're right back in the 1950's again.